For the Record:

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R8
  Fees are for the costs of copying, not for those of inspection. As noted by the Attorney General in an opinion concluding that counties may charge a fee “reasonably necessary” to recover wider costs for copying public records—costs beyond the strict “direct cost of duplication”— inspection is free: “In any event, a Rreasonably necessary’ fee for a copy of a public record would have no effect upon the publicTs right of access to and inspection of public records free of charge.” (Opinion Vo 01-605, Vovember 1, 2002). Moreover, the “direct cost of duplication” that, pursuant to Government Code §6253, subd. (b), may be charged to the requester by agencies other than counties may not include overhead. “The direct cost of duplication is the cost of running the copy machine, and conceivably also the expense of the person operating it. RJirect cost’ does not include the ancillary tasks necessarily associated with the retrieval, inspection and handling of the file from which the copy is extracted.” !o#$% 'o()$* Pa#e)$. /#ga)12a$1o) 34 5e6a#$7e)$ of 9:(;a$1o), 23 Cal.App.4th 146 (4th Jist. 1994) <. Prompt access is re7uired for clearly pu3lic records. Jelay is allowed only to resolve good faith doubts as to whether all or part of a record is accessible by the public. So, for example, if the requester asks to see the minutes of public meetings, there is no need to make the “determination” as to whether or not they are public, since minutes of public meetings are, without question, public records. That being the case, access is to be provided “promptly,” not put off for 10 days (Government Code §6253, subd. (b))[ to underscore this point, subd. (d) states that “Vothing in (the CPRA) shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” And while the 10-day period is not a legal deadline for producing the records, the date of production should not lag the 10-day (or, if extended with notice to the requester, up to 14 days more) “determination” point by much, because in most if not all cases, $%e 6e#.o) 7a<1)g $%e :e$e#71)a$1o) =1>> %a3e a>#ea:* %a: $o a..e7?>e a): #e31e= $%e #e;o#:. 1) o#:e# $o :o .o. Once the determination has been made, in other words, actual release of the records in question should not take much time to accomplish. >?. @ournalists and other people have the same rights of access. ]ournalists’ rights to inspect and copy public records are the same under the CPRA as those of any other person—no worse and, despite the free press guarantees of the state and federal constitutions, no better. “Vo California or federal judicial decision has ever attributed accessibility to public records upon First Amendment freedoms of speech or press.” @eg1.$e# 5131.1o) of A#ee:o7 !e=.6a6e#. 34 'o()$* of /#a)ge, 158 Cal.App.3d 893 (1984) And while we often speak of “citiaens” having the access rights, one need not be a California resident or even a b.S. citiaen to inspect or copy state or local public records. “(W)hen section 6253 declares every person has a right to inspect any public record, when section 6257 commands state and local agencies to make records promptly available to any person on request, and when section 6258 expressly states any person may institute proceedings to enforce the right of inspection, they mean what they say.” 'o))e>> 34 B(6e#1o# 'o(#$, 56 Cal.App.4th 601 (1997)