Contra Costa Times
March 15, 2006

In the words of California State University attorney Dawn Theodora, I suppose we're just "missing the point" when we, the public, expect public agencies to treat us like the people who pay their bills through our taxes.

Theodora's words were taken from an e-mail she sent Times attorney Karl Olson on March 7, in which she disputed the public's right to obtain electronic records free of charge. Olson had asked the CSU for an explanation for its demand that the Times pay 20 cents a page for records either e-mailed of faxed to the newspaper.

The dispute stems from a Times request last month for all requests made to CSU headquarters under the California Public Records Act, approximately over the course of 2005. That we are entitled to these records is not in question -- the Act is clear.

But the act also is relatively clear about the rights public agencies have to charge for records. The law states that agencies may charge the public only for "the direct costs of duplication."

The same request was made of the state's other two public higher-education systems, the University of California and the community colleges. Both systems complied at no charge.

But Theodora has refused to turn over the records without payment, saying that the university is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the computer equipment, Internet connection, wear and tear on machines, electricity and other expenses. The cost of e-mailed or faxed records is the same as the cost for printed records, she said.

When pressed for a more exact breakdown of the cost for electronic records, Theodora said none was available. The university uses federal guidelines, she said, even though state law governs the release of such records.

Furthermore, Theodora said CSU employees had created their own paper copies of the records that were already in electronic format, printing them in response to the Times' request. In a phone interview, she called the printing "standard procedure."

Several open-government experts said the university was either explicitly violating state law or not abiding by the spirit of Proposition 59, the constitutional amendment approved by 83 percent of California's voters in 2004 that was meant to expand public access to government.

Prop. 59 "is just another reason for agencies to eat as much (of the cost) as they can and not to nickel and dime requesters," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition.

If CSU charges 20 cents per page for electronic copies, "it's incumbent upon them to justify it, which they would have difficulty doing," Scheer said.

State law allows the public to inspect records in person at no cost, but it's 389 miles from the Times' front door to CSU headquarters in Long Beach. University officials should take that into account, especially in the context of our constitutional rights guaranteed by Prop. 59.

"We still run into problems with agencies that want to tack on extreme costs," said Tom Newton, lead counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. "Twenty cents a page seems extraordinary."

The university's copy machines can even make electronic copies of documents, Theodora said.

After being told that the other two state systems had provided similar records to the Times without charging for them, Theodora went so far as to call attorneys at the UC system and community college headquarters to verify the claim. That verification made no difference in her position, however.

CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, declined to comment on the university's circumvention of state law. Several CSU trustees did not return phone calls on the subject.

Trustee Jeffrey Bleich, a San Francisco attorney who has represented several media outlets, would not comment on this case.

"I've always been proud of the fact that (the CSU system is) more forthcoming than other university systems," he said.

It appears that isn't the case, at least with these particular records.