Question
After about a year of advocacy, I have convinced the city to adopt campaign finance e-filing and publishing of campaign finance disclosure data on the city’s website. But the city council has directed the city clerk to redact campaign contributor street addresses in the online data. However, unredacted disclosure data will continue to be available to members of the public who contact the city clerk’s office directly to request paper copies or e-mailed copies.
Given that campaign finance data is an official public record, is it legal for the city to require members of the public to jump through extra hoops in order to obtain the full unredacted data?
Answer
As you may know, under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”), Govt. Code section 6250 et seq., records in the possession of state or local public agencies are presumed to be public unless an exemption to disclosure applies. Here, because the City discloses the street addresses at issue when a direct request is made, presumably the city takes the position that either no exemption to the PRA applies to the documents, or more specifically, to the street addresses, or that it will disclose the complete records in spite of an applicable exemption. I am not aware of any authority that would permit a local agency to argue that an exemption applies records that are made available in one medium, but not in another (The PRA defines “public records” to include “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.” Govt. Code section 6253(e) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the City may argue that it is not required to make the street addresses available online and that it is therefore permissible for it to redact the addresses in the online version. I am not aware of any particular authority that would support this position, however, and the position does not seem to make a great deal of sense where making the information available online would seem to entail less cost and work for the government agency.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.