California Assembly Bill AB289

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/19
• Refer: 3/21/19
• Report Pass: 3/21/19
• Refer: 3/25/19
• Report Pass: 4/10/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 4/23/19
• Refer: 4/25/19
• Refer: 5/8/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/23/19
• Refer: 5/24/19
• Refer: 6/19/19

Caption

California Public Records Act Ombudsperson.

Impact

If enacted, AB 289 would significantly impact how citizens interact with public agencies regarding access to records. It introduces a framework for the resolution of disputes surrounding public records requests, thereby potentially increasing transparency and fostering greater public trust in governmental operations. The establishment of an ombudsperson could reduce the ambiguities that currently exist in handling denials of records requests, making the process more user-friendly and responsive to the public's right to information.

Summary

Assembly Bill 289, introduced by Assembly Member Fong, aims to enhance public access to government records by establishing a California Public Records Act Ombudsman within the California State Auditor's Office. This ombudsperson is designated to address complaints from the public regarding improper denials of public records requests made under the existing California Public Records Act. The bill aims to ensure that the process for reviewing such denials is systematic and that State agencies are held accountable for their decisions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 289 appears largely positive among proponents of government transparency and accountability. Supporters believe that this legislation is a necessary step toward reinforcing the public's right to access government information and ensuring that public agencies do not unjustly deny requests for records. However, there could be some resistance from those who believe that the bill may impose additional burdens on state agencies or introduce complications into the public records request process.

Contention

Key points of contention may arise around the appropriations necessary to implement the proposed Ombudsman role and the expectations placed on state agencies by the new review processes. Critics might argue that the creation of this position could divert resources from other vital services or create more bureaucratic hurdles. Nevertheless, supporters contend that the potential benefits of clarity and accountability far outweigh these concerns.