Recent Public Agency Law Changes

Public Records Act: AB 1014

The Legislature has amended the California Public Records Act by requiring public agencies to assist persons in requesting records. Amended Government Code Section 6253 and new Government Code Section 6253.1 are effective January 1, 2002.

New Section 6253.1. Section 6253.1 requires a public agency to assist a member of the public in formulating a request to inspect or obtain a copy of a public record. The public agency must help the person “make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records.” The public agency can accomplish this task in three ways:

  • By helping the person to identify records that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request (this is done by making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester);
  • By describing the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and
  • By providing suggestions for overcoming any practical reasons that the public agency may have for denying access to the records.

A public agency may avoid the new requirements of section 6253.1 by (a) making the requested records available; (b) denying the request based solely on an exemption listed in section 6254; or (c) making available an index of its records.

Amendment to Section 6253. Pursuant to existing section 6253(a), a public agency must make public records available to persons upon a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records. The Legislature added subsection (c) to section 6253, which now requires a public agency, within 10 days of a request, to determine if the records that are requested are disclosable public records in the agency’s possession. The agency must also promptly notify the requester of its determination and the reasons for the determination. Under “unusual circumstances,” the agency may extend the 10-day period by giving written notice to the requester; the notice must set forth the reasons for the extension and give a date (not to exceed 14 days) by which the public agency expects to make a determination. “Unusual circumstances” exist if the agency needs to (1) search for and collect the requested records from establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; (2) search for, collect, and examine a voluminous amount of records; (3) consult with another agency; or (4) compile or extract data or write a computer program or report.

Brown Act: SB 671

A new section was recently added to the Government Code regarding closed sessions of local agency meetings. California’s open meetings law (the Ralph M. Brown Act or “Brown Act”) requires that meetings of local agencies generally be conducted openly and publicly. The new section, 54957.10, authorizes closed sessions to “discuss a local agency employee’s application for early withdrawal of funds in a deferred compensation plan when the application is based on financial hardship arising from an unforeseeable emergency due to illness, accident, casualty,” as defined in the plan.

Brown Act: Attorney General Opinion 00-01210

The California Attorney General recently reconciled the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Brown Act. The Attorney General determined that a city is not required under the ADA to provide, as an accommodation for a disabled member of its city council or an advisory board who is unable to attend a regularly scheduled meeting of the council or board, a teleconferencing connection at the member’s place of residence where the public would not be present.

The Brown Act allows public meetings to be conducted through teleconferencing connections, but requires that members of the public must be permitted to be present at each of the teleconferencing locations.

Under the ADA, employers cannot discriminate against a “qualified individual with a disability because of the disability.” A “qualified individual with a disability” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”

Construing the requirements of the ADA and the Brown Act together, the Attorney General determined that the ability to attend a scheduled meeting at a location that is open to the public is an “essential function” of a member of a city council or advisory board. The Attorney General also concluded that the ability to attend scheduled meetings that are accessible to the public is related to the qualifications of a city council member or advisory board member.

Therefore, according to the Attorney General, holding teleconference meetings at a council or advisory board member’s place of residence is not a reasonable accommodation if members of the public are not allowed to be present at the residence.