California Public Records Act
From Sunshine Review
The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of governmental bodies in California. Statutes 6250 - 6270 define the law.
When the law was passed, the California legislature prefaced it by saying, "...access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state".
The California Open Meeting Act (also cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act) legislates the methods by which public meetings are conducted. Statutes 11120-11132 define the law.
To learn more about how to make a public records request in this state, please see: California FOIA procedures
[edit] Recent news
- See also: California transparency headlines
[edit] Transparency blocking
- Palin's speech calls into question California's laws on non-profits Apr 14, 2010
- State lawmakers urge against pricey ballot measures Aug 06, 2009
- The Investigation the County Doesn't Want You to See May 24, 2009
More transparency blocking news from across the country.
[edit] Litigation
- Judge orders CSU Stanislaus to release Palin's speaking contract Aug 27, 2010
- Our View: Open records crucial to accountability May 13, 2009
- Government info: You bought it, you should be able to see it May 13, 2009
More FOIA litigation news from across the country.
[edit] Legislation
- New California Law Attempts to Sidestep CPRA Oct 12, 2009
- Fresno State case leads to push to add open records May 13, 2009
- New bill to open up costs May 13, 2009
More FOIA legislation news from across the country.
[edit] Sunshine Guardians
- California Courts to adopt open records policy Mar 03, 2010
Other Sunshine Guardians from across the country.
[edit] Relevant legal cases
- See also: Court cases with an impact on state FOIA
Here is a list of lawsuits in California. For more information go the the page or go to California sunshine lawsuits.
(The cases are listed alphabetically. To order them by year please click the icon to the right of the Year heading)
| Lawsuit | Year |
|---|---|
| Adler v. City Council of Culver City | 1960 |
| American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian | 1982 |
| American Federation of State etc. Employees v. Regents of University of California | 1978 |
| Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court | 2004 |
| Black Panther Party v. Kehoe | 1974 |
| Braun v. City of Taft | 1984 |
| CBS Broadcasting v. Superior Court | 2001 |
| CBS Inc. v. Block | 1986 |
| California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court | 2001 |
| Californians Aware v. Orange Unified School District | 2006 |
| Chronicle Publishing Company v. Superior Court | 1960 |
| Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dept. of Food & Agriculture | 1985 |
| City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court | 1951 |
| City of Hemet v. Superior Court | 1995 |
| Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks | 1994 |
| Coronado Police Officers Association v. Carroll | 2003 |
| County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court | 1993 |
| Desert Sun v. Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority | 2005 |
| Dixon v. Superior Court | 2009 |
| Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Dist. | 2001 |
| International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. | 1999 |
| Lorig v. Medical Board | 2000 |
| Mushet v. Department of Public Service of City of Los Angeles | 1917 |
| Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers Inc. v. County of Orange | 1984 |
| Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors | 1968 |
| San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court | 1983 |
| State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court | 1992 |
| Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court | 1991 |
| Versaci v. Superior Court | 2005 |
| Williams v. Superior Court | 1993 |
To read up on other California lawsuits or research new public records lawsuits see: Findlaw.com's California Case listings.
[edit] Proposed changes to the law
[edit] 2010
Here is a list of transparency legislation for California in 2010:
| Rating | Bill | Current Status | Progress | Information | ||||||||||||||||||||
 B | Assembly Bill 1682 | Current Status: Z (05/04/2010, Killed by committee) |
|
AB 1682 introduced by Assemblywoman Norma Torres would alter the California Public Records Act to exempt the addresses of individuals arrested and accused of crimes and the home addresses of victims of crimes and instead release the name of their home city. [1] | ||||||||||||||||||||
 A | Senate Bill 218 | Current Status:Z (Vetoed by Gov. 10/11/2009, Stricken from Senate 1/19/2010) |
|
SB 218 is a bill proposed by Senator Leland Yee which would remove the exemption currently in case law established by California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court for auxiliary organizations designed to promote state and local schools. It would redefine the definition of public body within the laws to include these state and local axillary organizations which fundraiser and invest in specific state schools and univerities. It would however protect the anonymity of donors, unless those donors receive a direct material benefit from their donation. [1] | ||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] 2009
- Senate Bill 106 [1] seeks to add school districts, community college districts, and county boards of education to the definition of a local agency whose officials must receive ethics training on subjects such as open records laws. The bill was introduced on March 4, 2009 and remains in the Senate as of April 2009.[2]
- Senate Bill 218 [1] seeks to make the records of non-profit organizations associated with state agencies and universities subject to the Open Records law. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who stated that "Taxpayers and students deserve to know how their public universities are run". [3] The bill was amended and sent back to the Senate's Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2009.[4]
- Senate Bill 502 [1] would require state agencies and departments to develop a searchable web site relating to the expenditures of state funds. The bill was referred to the Senate's Governmental Organization Committee in March of 2009.[5]
- Senate Bill 719 [1] would require state agencies and departments to develop and maintain a searchable web site that includes information relating to expenditures of state funds including contract grants, purchase orders, subcontracts, tax refunds, rebates and credits. The bill was referred to the Senate's Appropriations Committee in April of 2009.[6]
- Assembly Bill 400 sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon would require public disclosure of state spending by all departments.[1]It was referred to the Committee on Appropriations in April of 2009.[7]
- Assembly Bill 520 [8] would allow superior courts to issue protective orders limiting the number and scope of requests a person can make under the California Public Records Act if the court determines that the requester is seeking the records for an 'improper purpose' (including, but not limited to, harassing employees of state agencies).
The bill has received wide criticism, particularly for failing to define the term 'improper' with any specificity.[9] The California Newspapers Publishers Association wrote a letter to Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter expressing their opposition to the bill and stating their position that "public access decisions must be made based on the law's presumption of access" and that "agencies must never be allowed to determine whether or not to comply with a request based on whether the request is for a use approved by the agency (i.e., a good use)".[10]
- Assembly Bill 1194 [1] would also require state agencies and departments to develop and maintain a searchable web site that includes information relating to expenditures of state funds. The bill was referred to the Business and Professions Committee in April of 2009.[11]
[edit] Transparency report card
A 2008 study, BGA - Alper Integrity Index, conducted by the Better Government Association and sponsored by Alper Services, ranked California #19 in the nation with an overall percentage of 55.30%. [12]
A 2007 study, Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, conducted by BGA and the NFOIC, gave California 53 points out of a possible 100, a letter grade of "F", and a ranking of 17 out of the 50 states.[13]
A 2002 study, Freedom of Information in the USA, conducted by IRE and BGA, ranked California's law as the 21st best in the country, giving it a letter grade of "C-".[14]
[edit] Features of the law
[edit] What records are covered?
- Unless there is a specific statutory exemption, all records of included agencies are subject to the CPRA.
- "Public records" are defined as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."
- Cal. Gov't Code § 6252(g) defines "writing" as "any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combination thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored."
- However, unlike in some states, such as New York, in California the "mere custody of a writing by a public agency does not make it a public record, but if a record is kept by an officer because it is necessary or convenient to the discharge of his official duty, it is a public record."[15]
- One California court has set apart a category of "purely personal information" that, although it may be in the custody of a government agency, does not fall under the CPRA. "This definition is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and will pertain to any new form of record-keeping instrument as it is developed. Only purely personal information unrelated to 'the conduct of the public's business' could be considered exempt from this definition, i.e., the shopping list phoned from home, the letter to a public officer from a friend which is totally void of reference to governmental activities.'"[16]
[edit] Exemptions
Statute 6254 outlines a number of exemptions to the California Public Records Act
In addition to statute 5254, statute 6255 of the CPRA provides a catch all exemption, stating that "The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record". The question of what defines public interest has come up in many court cases, the most notable of which include:
[edit] What agencies are covered?
- Every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board and commission or other state body or agency is covered by CPRA except the state legislature and the courts.
- Local agencies are covered, including counties, cities, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political subdivisions, or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agencies; or non-profit entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency. See California Government Code §6252(a).
[edit] What agencies are not covered?
- The entire judicial branch of the government is not covered under CPRA. However, there are some other common law understandings, federal law, and other California laws under which some records of the judicial branch may be considered public records.
- The state legislature exempted itself and its committees from the CPRA.
- There is a separate act, the Legislative Open Records Act, to which records of the legislature are subject.
- A California Constitutional Sunshine Amendment was passed by California's voters in 2004; it does apply to the Legislature because it applies generally to "public bodies" and to the "writings of public officials," without excluding the Legislature.
[edit] Who may request records?
Anyone can request public documents in California. "[E]very person has a right to inspect any public record". [17]
- California Government Code (CGC) Sec. 6252(c) defines "person" to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm or association.
- Foreign and domestic corporations are included in the CPRA's definition of "person."
- Unlike the situation in some states, a plaintiff who files suit against a public agency may utilize the CPRA to obtain documents for use in litigation to the same extent as any other person.
[edit] Must a requestor state a purpose?
Whatever the motivation of a person may be in requesting records under CPRA, it is irrelevant in determining whether the records must be provided to that person.[18]
[edit] How can records be used?
The CPRA does not say anything about the uses to which public records may be put after being obtained through CPRA.
CPRA, however, does have an "investigatory records exemption" which says that a person who requests the address of an individual who has been arrested, or the current address of the victim of a crime, must declare under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a journalistic, scholarly, political or governmental purpose, or is sought for investigatory purposes by a licensed private investigator. The requester must also declare that the information obtained pursuant to this subsection will not be used directly or indirectly to sell a product or service.
[edit] Fees for records
The CPRA allows government agencies to charge "fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable."
- If a specific statute defines a specific fee for a certain type of record, that takes precedence over CPRA.
- In 1994, a California court defined "direct costs" to include photocopying costs only.[19]
- For electronic data, "direct cost" is the cost of producing "a copy of a record in an electronic format."
[edit] Search fees
- When a person asks to inspect records, but not copy them, CPRA does not include a provision that allows government agencies to charge for search and retrieval time.
- In 1994, a California court disallowed a 25-cent per-page fee because the agency arrived at the fee by adding staff time into its calculations.
[edit] Fee waivers
Government agencies may reduce or waive fees under the CPRA provision that allows agencies to develop ways to provide greater access than CPRA's minimum standards.
[edit] Extensive and burdensome searches
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian declared that the cost incurred by any department of separating exempted material from non-exempted material represents a detriment to the public interest of the smooth and efficient flow of government. This detriment can be weighted against the benefit to the public of the release of the records when considering whether to deny records requests based on statute 6255 of the California Public Records Act
[edit] Open meetings
- To read more about open meetings laws in California, please see:California Open Meeting Act
"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed."[20]
[edit] Notable requests
[edit] See also
- California FOIA procedures
- California transparency headlines
- California transparency advocates
- California transparency legislation
- Private agency, public dollars-California
- California Open Meeting Act
[edit] External links
- California Constitute, Article 1 section 3
- California Law select Government Code, and search for the statue number. (see above)
- Open Government Guide to California
- Past Articles on California
- The CalAware blog, which covers issues relating to the CPRA.
- Californians Aware
[edit] References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Text & Status of SB218 (enter the bill number and search)
- ↑ Status of SB106
- ↑ Fresno State case leads to push to add open records, Fresno Bee, March 3, 2009
- ↑ Status of SB 218
- ↑ Status of SB 502
- ↑ Status of Senate Bill 719
- ↑ Status of AB 400
- ↑ Text of AB 520
- ↑ SFBG Politics Blog, Blocking California's sunshine: Proposed legislation would limit access to public information, April 27, 2009
- ↑ California Progress Report. Legislation Would Allow Courts to Gag Public Records Requestors, April 21, 2009
- ↑ Status of 1194
- ↑ Integrity Index available for download here
- ↑ Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, 2007
- ↑ Freedom of Information in the USA, 2002
- ↑ This statement was made in Braun v. City of Taft, 1984.
- ↑ This statement appears in San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 1983.
- ↑ California Government Code, 6253.(a)
- ↑ In CBS Broadcasting v. Superior Court, 2001, the court said that a member of the public is not required to say why the records are desired.
- ↑ North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education
- ↑ California Governmental Code 11120
| |||||
| |||||||||||
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Transparency |
Public Records Act | Open Meeting Act | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | |
| Divisions |
State |
List of counties |
List of Cities |
List of School Districts, A - L |
List of School Districts, M - Y | |
| State spending |
State budget | State salaries | Stimulus allocations | Taxpayer-funded lobbying | |
| Government |
California State Constitution | Executive | House of Representatives | Senate | Local officials | Public school system | |
| Judiciary |
California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News | |
| Ballot Measures |
2008 Ballot measures | 2008 local ballot measures | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process | |
