This California bill could impact public records access. It’s of special interest in Shasta
The proposed bill’s proponent says it would reduce “frivolous” public records requests. A transparency group says it would “chill” public access. In Shasta, California’s mandated public records process is already under scrutiny by local government officials who say it’s costing taxpayers too much.
A free speech group is raising alarm over a bill working its way through the California Legislature.
As currently written, Assembly Bill 1821 — which would amend California’s 1968 Public Records Act — allows government agencies to delay responding to certain requests and to charge for the time spent searching for and providing public records deemed to be for “commercial use”.
It also authorizes local agencies to petition the courts if they believe a public requester has made a request with “malicious intent.”
According to CalMatters reporting, the bill’s proponent — LA-based Assembly Member Blanca Pacheco — says she hopes it will reduce “frivolous” requests, especially those that might be generated by AI. In an interview with the statewide media agency, she called the bill’s changes to CPRA law, “minor amendments or minor tweaks.”
The nonprofit First Amendment Coalition disagrees. Earlier this week, the organization sent out a press release noting recent changes to the bill and calling it “bad for government transparency, for accountability and for our democracy.”
FAC Executive Director David Snyder wrote that an aspect of the bill that allows agencies to petition the courts over so-called malicious intent, “would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability.”
He also cited decades-old California law making it clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters. Allowing such suits, he wrote, would put an “intolerable chill” on the public’s exercise of its right to access.
In Shasta County, access to public records is already under scrutiny by local government officials hoping to reduce costs associated with the process. Over recent months county CEO David Rickert has made multiple public mentions of his concerns about the county’s costs associated with an rising number of public records requests — a total of 1,316 last calendar year.
Each request, Rickert said during an April 7 public meeting, takes a minimum of two hours to respond to, with a total of 2,632 hours spent in 2025, the equivalent of more than one full-time position.
During the same meeting he even called out public records requesters by name. Shasta Scout was named as the top user of the county’s record request portal in calendar year 2025 with 54 requests, followed by activist and elections staffer Laura Hobbs — with 42 requests.
Asked why he chose to name top records requestors publicly, Rickert wrote by email that his comments were meant to “inform the Board and the public of the activity.”
“On a side note,” Rickert continued, “I am interested in ways we can streamline the PRA process and improve transparency.”
The county has already implemented significant efforts to streamline and improve the process over recent years, implementing a records request portal in August 2024 that has made asking for public documents relatively simple. A public benefit of the portal is that it distributes transparency across a wider audience by allowing the public at large to view all responsive documents alongside the associated requests on a searchable county portal.
The switch to that process may be one reason requests have increased by at least 30% since the last fiscal year, a stat shared by deputy CEO Erin Bertain during recent budget hearings.
But Susanne Baremore, a Shasta community member who worked for the county’s legal department decades ago, says there’s another reason the county is having to shell out more cash to deal with increased public records requests.
“I believe that the volume of PRA [requests] is symptomatic of some deficits in leadership and knowledge base for key positions within the county,” Baremore said by phone yesterday.
A helpful first step in reducing the need for records requests would be ensuring more county officials actually answer the questions they’re asked, she said. With 37 requests in the last calendar year, Baremore was among the top requesters called out by Rickert in April.
Last week, during county budget hearings, the issue of records requests was raised publicly again, both by deputy CEO Bertain and by Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson, who, like Pacheco, called some public records requests “frivolous.” He also said the need to comply with California Public Records Act law, especially when it comes to body camera footage, will be “problematic moving forward.”
“It’s costing us a lot of time, money and effort and staffing just to keep up with those,” Johnson said, “and some of those are as frivolous as some college student doing some study.”
Last summer, a Shasta Scout intern — who had just graduated from university — used the records process to reveal a Redding ICE facility that had not been publicly acknowledged by local law enforcement officials. Since being hired as a full-time reporter last fall, her CPRA requests of the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office — used along with other data sources — have revealed ongoing detentions at that facility as well as Sheriff Johnson’s unsuccessful attempt to collaborate with ICE officials last year.
Yesterday, Shasta County spokesperson Miranda Angel responded to a request for comment by writing that the county is aware of AB 1821 and has been monitoring amendments. She said staff plan to bring a position letter on the bill to the board for consideration at an upcoming meeting, but did not elaborate about what position staff may suggest.
“At that time, more information will be available,” Angel wrote. “The letter will ultimately be up to the Board to approve.”
Disclosure: The nonprofit First Amendment Coalition has previously represented Shasta Scout pro bono in several successful legal demands against both Shasta County and the City of Redding. Those legal demands resulted in a change to local records law, the return of press rights, and access to body camera footage — all in service of the public’s good.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (14)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
Redding planning commissioner and engineer announces run for city council
Russ Wenham has served on the city’s planning commission for about two years and previously spent over two decades working for CalTrans. There are three spots on the city council up for election in November.
New Shasta strategic plan lays out ambitious five-year agenda. Money remains a central problem
Shasta’s new five-year strategic plan prioritizes several projects, including a corrections and rehabilitation campus and local medical school. But a lack of clear funding sources may keep Shasta from following through.
Juneteenth celebration in Downtown Redding will honor African American history
The Shasta Coalition of African Americans for Community Health, Education and Empowerment is hosting a community celebration in Downtown Redding to celebrate and educate about Juneteenth, which commemorates the end of slavery in the United States.
There is an old saying, “You abuse it: You lose it.” That old saying notwithstanding, the bill is a bad bill, and several areas of our society ate opposing it–especially the news media. Oddly, the vast majority of news media in California are slanted left politically. Why is that odd? It is the hard-slanted left legislature that is pushing this bill forward. (There is a lesson in this article for those on the left side of the political spectrum.)
What do we pay taxes for? The costs of services to the public. The provision of access to public records is a public right-to-know service. Requiring an additional fee is double taxation. Refusing to provide the service for which we are being taxed is dereliction of duty and an attempt to hide what goes on, pure and simple.
Thanks for the story.
Kevin Crye derangement bugs are everywhere—This is a STATE mandate BUT it’s all Kevin’s fault
Crye Derangement Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome have something in common: They brought it on themselves with their narcissism, self-dealing, cruelty, vengefulness, and unhinged behavior.
.
Aside from that, prior to you bring up Crye there was one brief mention of him in a single comment, and zero in the article. That’s “Crye Derangement bugs everywhere”? Perhaps you’re suffering from Crye Hypersensitivity-Hyperdefensiveness Syndrome, like Crye himself.
What are you talking about? Crye Baby isn’t mentioned at all in the article, and one comment mentions him in passing as a possible beneficiary of a policy to destroy records. There is derangement operating here, but not where you think.
Selah
Gee, I don’t know, maybe if the county was a little more transparent in their dealings and actions, they wouldn’t have this problem.
They want to save money responding to requests for transparency. So they are going to erase any emails more than a year old in a couple of weeks.
.
Imagine how much money is going to be wasted with a loss of historical knowledge when those disappear. And how many hours (aka your tax dollars) will be burned re-creating wheels or making mistakes that could have blown avoided if information was still available to employees working on tasks.
.
And imagine how much information nobody will be able to recover. Any Kevin Crye emails? Any CEO Rickert emails? Any Patrick Jones emails?
.
Clever.
Where does the sheriff get off calling a student trying to learn and research “frivolous?”
Those are OUR records, incase anyone in county government is unclear on the issue, and we can request them (with limitations such as HIPPAA and some personnel matters) and get them.
The County’s current plan to deal with PRA is to delete all emails over 12 months old. Can’t provide information that no longer exists.
This is easy. Put ALL public records in a searchable read only server. Period. Done.
Sounds good to me. How can we STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING?
Why would the sheriff have any concerns about “Some college student doing some study.”
Is it a personal vendetta?
As a “Constitutional Sheriff” shouldn’t he respect individual rights?
It’s nice to see the maga climate of Shasta County fading away.
It would be nice if ALL public officials could leave their personal bias at home. Or better yet if more fair and neutral people could take the place of these ones that are here now
Why not have artificial intelligence handle public record requests? Surely it would be faster and cheaper than paying staff for the 2,632 hours per year they waste on the tedious task.
The last people who should be empowered to determine if a request is “frivolous” or “malicious” are the ones subject to the request. Rickert’s ham handed attempt to intimidate those making requests is Exhibit A . Anyone think it’s a good idea for law enforcement to get to decide whether to release body camera footage or not? That’s a dangerous path. Rickert should be updating his resume` anyway, as he’s part of the JCK flotsam that needs to be cleaned out.
Selah