California Assembly Bill AB1819

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/19
• Refer: 3/28/19
• Report Pass: 3/28/19
• Refer: 4/1/19
• Report Pass: 4/10/19
• Refer: 4/22/19
• Report Pass: 4/24/19
• Engrossed: 5/6/19
• Refer: 5/6/19
• Refer: 6/12/19
• Report Pass: 7/3/19
• Refer: 7/3/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/10/19
• Chaptered: 10/9/19
• Passed: 10/9/19

Caption

Inspection of public records: use of requester’s reproduction equipment.

Impact

The bill's enactment ensures that agencies must respect the rights of individuals to use personal equipment for the reproduction of public records, provided that this does not cause damage or access issues to the records or the agency's systems. Local agencies may set reasonable limits to protect the integrity of records and the orderly function of their operations. This provision emphasizes that while the public has enhanced access to records, agencies retain the authority necessary to safeguard their operational workflows.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1819, approved on October 9, 2019, amends Section 6253 of the California Government Code, specifically targeting the right to access public records. The bill allows individuals inspecting public records on agency premises to use their own equipment for reproduction, free of charge. This change aims to streamline the process of accessing public documents by removing financial barriers associated with copying records. The legislation reinforces the ideals of transparency in government operations and broadens the rights of the public in obtaining information from governmental agencies.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 1819 appears to be mainly positive, as it is viewed as a step forward in promoting transparency and ensuring that the public has the means to access important governmental information without incurring unexpected costs. Stakeholders, including advocates for open government, have likely supported the bill for its intent to empower citizens in their ability to scrutinize public bodies effectively.

Contention

Despite the positive reception, some contention may arise regarding the enforcement of limitations set by agencies on the use of personal reproduction equipment. Concerns may include how these limitations could be applied in practice and whether they might inadvertently hinder access. The legislation does not require reimbursement for costs incurred by local agencies due to this mandate, which could lead to discussions about the financial implications for these bodies as they implement new procedures for public records access.