Even when the law requires disclosure, getting documents can be an uphill battle.

It may sound ironic, but the very people entrusted with maintaining public records are often the first to argue for keeping them private. The government offices that are supposed to safeguard transparency can become the places where access is slowed, narrowed, or outright denied.

In my half-century in journalism, I’ve never seen a time when public officials willingly handed over public records without resistance. Sometimes the pushback is subtle. They delay responding, demand excessive fees or claim that they don’t have the staff to compile the records.

More often, the resistance is direct. Requests are flatly denied, or the documents are so heavily redacted that they’re practically useless. In some cases, it takes hiring a lawyer to pry them loose, and that forces both sides to spend time and money fighting over access to records the public has already paid to create.

Fortunately, journalists and the public can rely on the California Public Records Act to safeguard access. The problem is that when officials are determined to block requests, they often delay responses or claim they haven’t located the records.

The CPRA recognizes valid grounds for withholding information, such as ongoing investigations, pending litigation, medical records, and confidential taxpayer data. At the same time, disputes frequently emerge when agencies invoke these exemptions in ways that appear overly broad, fueling concerns that they may be used to limit accountability.

Often, when public officials refuse to share information with journalists, it’s less about principle and more about damage control: Someone made a mistake, and they’re trying to avoid the fallout. In government, embarrassment is often the prime motivator.

There will always be a persistent tension between journalists and their sources, especially when access to public information is at stake. That tension between journalists and government officials is not a flaw but a safeguard. It helps prevent relationships from becoming too cozy and protects the independence of the press.

Although laws promise transparency, it is rarely granted freely in practice. Journalists must continually negotiate, challenge, and push to secure their right to access public information.

That’s what’s happening in the San Joaquin Valley right now, where two news organizations are in a dispute with Merced College over public records requests involving reassigning a dean. The college has complied with requests, but complained publicly that the reporter involved had filed an excessive number of public records requests and that responding has cost the institution roughly $20,000 across nearly a dozen separate inquiries.

As executive director of the Institute for Media and Public Trust at Fresno State, I was asked to comment on the dispute. Below are the relevant paragraphs from the KVPR story on the issue:

Submitting requests for information to a public institution is a standard practice for news organizations and allowed by open records laws, according to Jim Boren, the director of the Institute for Media and Public Trust at Fresno State.

“This is a ploy that is always used. They always say, ‘You keep asking for these public records, and it’s costing us all this money,’” Boren said. “It’s a ploy to divert the attention away from the public record.”

Boren said anyone in California – not only journalists – can request records from a public institution, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a free service.

“Everything has a cost,” he said. “I don’t think it’s $20,000, but somebody has to compile them. But I don’t think that’s a reason to not comply with the Public Records Act.”

Merced College officials somehow think they are on higher moral ground because they claim the requests are excessive and it is costly to compile. Of course, they could just give the reporter a copy of the records without complaining and be done with it. Dragging it out is what costs money.

They also shouldn’t be congratulating themselves for complying with the law, since it’s not as though they had any legal choice in the matter.

There also is another way public officials are trying to block public record requests. In the California Legislature, they are trying to weaken the public records law.

This is from David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition:

“Yesterday, I testified against AB 1821, a bill before the State Assembly’s Judiciary Committee that would extend the amount of time government agencies have to respond to public records requests. When I wrote this op-ed for CalMatters about the bill, it also included potentially hefty fees that would have prevented many requesters from accessing public records at all.

“Fortunately, the fees were removed in the current, amended version of the bill. But the bill still allows agencies to take more time to provide the public with even the most basic information such as whether the agency has responsive records, and whether and when the agency will provide those records.

“This is a recipe for more delays — something requestors already face far too often.”

The battle over public records is ongoing, and journalists, who serve as the public’s eyes and ears, depend on strong laws to hold public agencies and officials accountable.

When access is delayed, denied, or watered down through exemptions, it is not just journalists who are affected, but the public’s ability to understand how decisions are made and how power is exercised in the name of all residents.

Strengthening public records laws is not about giving journalists special treatment. It is to ensure government transparency. Accountability should not hinge on persistence alone or the willingness of agencies to finally cooperate. It should be guaranteed by laws that prioritize transparency.

(This column has been updated.)