CACEO June 2015

SB 272 Concerns

The Clerk of the Board Legislative Committee changed its position on SB 272 from “Concerns” to “Oppose Unless Amended”. SB 272 would amend the California Public Records Act (CPRA) with significant changes.

SB 272 would amend the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to require local agencies to compile and post on their web sites a catalog of all “enterprise systems”, including a general description of all “categories, modules, or layers of data” they contain, the current system vendor, the current system product, a brief statement of the system’s purpose, the department that serves as the systems primary custodian, how frequently the data is collected, and how frequently the system data is updated.

 While CACEO supports the concept – and, in fact, the practice – of making data and other information available to the public, we nevertheless, have serious concerns, as we noted in last month’s Newsletter.  In our most recent letter to the author and the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, we opposed the bill unless amended as follows:

  • Remove the bill from the CPRA and put it into an entirely separate chapter of the Government Code.
  • Instead of designating the clerk of the legislative body as the custodian of the catalog required by the bill, allow the legislative body, e.g., the board of supervisors, to designate the most appropriate agency official to be the custodian/compiler of the catalog.
  • More clearly define the systems or enterprise systems that would be subject to the bill and  exempt certain systems, such as “infrastructure” systems, security systems, and other systems whose data is either critical to security or whose data is of no use to the public.
  • Provide more definition to the terms used in the bill.


The bill was to be heard next Tuesday, June 16 in Assembly Judiciary.  However, we have been informed that the bill was pulled from the hearing schedule.  We do not know if it was a direct result of CACEO’s letter of opposition, which was delivered on Tuesday, June 9, or if it was due to other factors.  In any case, there may be some reason to hope that we can get the bill amended to address our concerns and the concerns of other local government agencies and associations.  As of this writing, CACEO is the only opposition to the bill on record.