{"id":24632,"date":"2026-06-17T19:46:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T19:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/06\/17\/your-government-wants-power-to-sue-you-for-seeking-public-records-borenstein-red-bluff-daily-news\/"},"modified":"2026-06-17T19:46:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T19:46:01","slug":"your-government-wants-power-to-sue-you-for-seeking-public-records-borenstein-red-bluff-daily-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/06\/17\/your-government-wants-power-to-sue-you-for-seeking-public-records-borenstein-red-bluff-daily-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Your government wants power to sue you for seeking public records | Borenstein – Red Bluff Daily News"},"content":{"rendered":"

e-Edition
Sign up for email newsletters
to submit an obituary
Please email dispatch@redbluffdailynews.com<\/a> or call 530-896-7718. Please include your name, mailing address, and phone number along with the copy and photo. <\/p>\n

Sign up for email newsletters
e-Edition
\t\t\tTrending:\t\t
The paper trail provides one of the most fundamental ways to monitor government agencies in California.
That\u2019s why, in 1968, the Legislature passed, and then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed, the state Public Records Act<\/a>, the state\u2019s version of the federal Freedom of Information Act.
California law contains extensive protection against the release of private records and information that would endanger ongoing police investigations. But, beyond that, the law generally and appropriately treats public agencies as open books.
The law declares that<\/a> \u201caccess to information concerning the conduct of the people\u2019s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.\u201d
But just as the Trump administration has launched attacks on government transparency<\/a>, so too are state and local officials in California trying to undermine access to public records.
Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, is leading the latest assault with the backing of groups like the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities.
Pacheco\u2019s proposed legislation, AB 1821<\/a>, would allow government agencies to charge steep fees \u2014 an \u201cadministrative fee\u201d of $22.35 per hour and a \u201cprofessional fee\u201d of $66.26 per hour \u2014 for staff time finding records that are supposed to already be publicly available.
Until now, the law has been clear that agencies may generally only charge for copying costs (something that\u2019s essentially unnecessary in this day of digital records). But Pacheco\u2019s bill would allow the agency to delay fulfilling a request made with \u201cmalicious intent,\u201d a phrase that is not defined in the legislation, and to seek a court order to impose the steep fees.
Let that sink in: Your government wants to be able to file a lawsuit against you for the mere act of submitting a records request it deems harmful or spiteful.
It\u2019s a horrible precedent. Public records should be made available in a timely manner and without charges to any member of the public or press, without examination of intent. For it should not be up to the members of a public agency, or a court, to determine who can access public records nor to judge their motives.
This is yet another version of the Trump administration\u2019s weaponization of access denial to punish members of the press or public who are in disfavor.
The bill does not stop there. It would also allow charges for staff time if the records sought are for \u201ccommercial use,\u201d defined as for a purpose \u201cthat furthers commercial, trade, or profit interests.\u201d
That standard is so broad that it would apply to, say, a business owner who wanted to know the reason their building permit application was denied, or their license fees were going up.
And imposing charges for commercial use would create an absurd two-tier system of access. Could a renter, for example, receive information without charge about a property tax increase, but a landlord who has a profit interest could not?
The \u201cmalicious intent\u201d fee could apply to anyone seeking public information. And, although the \u201ccommercial use\u201d fee would not apply to educational institutions or members of the news media who can meet the bill\u2019s definition, it would still stifle information for the public generally \u2014 especially because some of the most compelling news stories start with tips by members of the public inquisitive enough to check government records.
Public records and meetings should be just that: Public. Yet groups like those representing counties and cities annually push bad legislation trying to narrow access to records and public meetings.
Worse, the staff of these organizations often act without their board\u2019s knowledge. For example, for AB 1821, I surveyed four Bay Area members of the board of the California State Association of Counties to find out what they knew about it.
Supervisors John Gioia of Contra Costa and David Haubert of Alameda County were not familiar with the details of the bill. The CSAC board president, Susan Ellenberg of Santa Clara County, and vice president, Luis Alejo of Monterey County, declined to comment, referring my calls back to the counties association.
Yet the association they\u2019re leading was working to undermine public access to public records their constituents should be able to see.
The county association argues that AB 1821 is needed because some humongous records requests seem designed to hamstring government agencies. I\u2019m sympathetic with the problem. But the state Supreme Court for more than four decades has provided protection against abusive requests.
The high court in 1982 recognized<\/a> the \u201cpublic concern with the cost and efficiency of government,\u201d and held that it is not \u201cin the public interest\u201d to \u201cmake it possible for any person requesting information, for any reason or for no particular reason, to impose upon a governmental agency a limitless obligation.\u201d
In such cases, the court said in 2020<\/a>, agencies can decline to process what the law calls \u201crequests that place undue burdens on an agency<\/a>.\u201d
In other words, there\u2019s already a solution in the law, supported by state Supreme Court rulings, that addresses the purported purpose of AB 1821. And there\u2019s no need for this legislation that goes much further, undermining the transparency that the state Supreme Court has said is fundamental to our democracy.
\u201cImplicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions,\u201d the court said in 1986<\/a>.
\u201cIn order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.\u201d
It\u2019s time for local governments to stop trying to block that access.
Daniel Borenstein is editor-at-large for the opinion section.<\/em>
Copyright 2026 Red Bluff Daily News. All rights reserved. The use of any content on this website for the purpose of training artificial intelligence systems, algorithms, machine learning models, text and data mining, or similar use is strictly prohibited without explicit written consent.<\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

e-EditionSign up for email newslettersto submit an obituary Please email dispatch@redbluffdailynews.com or call 530-896-7718. Please include your name, mailing address, and phone number along with the copy and photo. Sign up for email newsletterse-Edition Trending: The paper trail provides one of the most fundamental ways to monitor government agencies in California.That\u2019s why, in 1968, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":24633,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24632\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}