You should've had it in your hand the day they were talking about it
In a democracy, the announcement of public spending and the public's right to examine it are meant to be inseparable — yet in California, a multimillion-dollar diaper program contract promoted at a governor's press conference has remained hidden from citizens for over two months, despite explicit legal requirements for disclosure. The Newsom administration's prolonged delays, compounded by legislation that would extend response windows further, reveal how bureaucratic process can quietly erode the accountability it was designed to protect. What began as a routine records request has become a quiet test of whether transparency in government is a living principle or merely a procedural formality.
- A governor announces a high-profile diaper program partnership, then the machinery of his own administration spends sixty-plus days preventing the public from seeing the contract behind it.
- The records request bounced between three agencies, triggered an 'unusual circumstances' extension, and culminated in an automated Friday-holiday email asking for yet another two weeks — a choreography of delay that skirted the edges of legality.
- Simultaneously, state lawmakers are advancing AB 1821, which would convert existing response deadlines from calendar days to business days, effectively gifting agencies more time to do what they are already doing too slowly.
- A coalition spanning the ACLU, the First Amendment Coalition, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stripped the bill's most punitive provisions, but its core delay-enabling mechanism survived.
- Transparency advocates argue the fix is structural: major state contracts should be posted online the moment they are signed, making formal requests unnecessary — a standard that would have put this contract in the public's hands the day the governor held his press conference.
Four days after Governor Newsom announced a multimillion-dollar state diaper program with Baby2Baby — a nonprofit connected to the First Partner — CBS California Investigates filed a public records request for the contract and bid documents. Two months later, Californians still haven't seen them.
The request traveled from the Governor's Office to the California Health and Human Services Agency to the Department of Health Care Access and Information. Ten days in, the agency invoked an 'unusual circumstances' provision to extend its window, citing multiple components with an interest in the matter. On June 5, the department finally acknowledged the records were public — then said it needed three to four more weeks to locate and produce them. On July 3, the last day of that window, an automated email arrived at 5:09 p.m. on a Friday holiday requesting two more weeks.
While the delay unfolded, lawmakers were advancing AB 1821, which would convert the existing ten-day determination period and fourteen-day extension from calendar days to business days — adding roughly a week to each phase. The bill originally included provisions allowing agencies to sue requesters and charge up to $66 per hour for records. A coalition of civil liberties and taxpayer groups forced those elements out in committee, but the extended timelines remained.
Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg acknowledged the contradiction plainly: people shouldn't have to explain why they want public information or pay to receive it. Yet the bill advances, with its author arguing agencies are overwhelmed by broad requests.
Ginny LaRoe of the First Amendment Coalition offered a different frame entirely: contracts of this scale should be posted online the moment they're finalized, making formal requests unnecessary. Umberg signaled openness. 'It's up to us to motivate them to do so,' he said.
The questions the contract would answer — how the deal was structured, how bids were scored, what the procurement process looked like — are not administrative minutiae. They concern how the state spends public money on programs for vulnerable families. If California meets its latest deadline, citizens will have waited seventy days from the governor's announcement to see the document he promoted at a Capitol press conference.
In early May, just four days after Governor Gavin Newsom announced a multimillion-dollar state diaper program partnership with Baby2Baby—a nonprofit with ties to the First Partner—CBS California Investigates filed a public records request for the contract and competitive bid documents. It was a straightforward ask: the governor had just held a high-profile press conference about the deal, and California law explicitly requires state agencies to release such records. Two months later, Californians still have not seen them.
The delay reveals a pattern of bureaucratic friction that sits uneasily alongside the state's legal obligations. When CBS California asked the Newsom administration to skip the formal California Public Records Act process and simply provide an expedited copy, the request bounced between offices—from the Governor's Office to the California Health and Human Services Agency to the Department of Health Care Access and Information. By May 22, exactly ten calendar days after the initial request, the agency invoked an "unusual circumstances" provision to extend its response window by another two weeks. The reason: multiple agency components had an interest in the matter.
On June 5, after that extension, the Department of Health Care Access and Information finally agreed that the records were, in fact, public. But instead of releasing them, the agency said it would need three to four more weeks to locate and produce the documents. On July 3—the final day of that window, at 5:09 p.m. on a Friday holiday—an automated email arrived saying the state needed another two weeks. Fifty-six days after the initial request, sixty days after the governor's announcement, the contract remained unreleased.
The timing is notable because while CBS California waited, California lawmakers were advancing legislation that would make such delays easier to justify. Assembly Bill 1821, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, originally proposed allowing state agencies to sue requesters for "malicious" requests and charge up to $66 per hour to provide records. After fierce opposition from the First Amendment Coalition, the ACLU, Common Cause California, the League of Women Voters, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Senate Judiciary Committee stripped the most controversial elements. But the amended version still extends the legal window for agencies to respond—converting the maximum ten-day determination period and fourteen-day extension from calendar days to business days, effectively adding roughly a week to each phase.
Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg acknowledged the tension. "People shouldn't have to tell us why they want that information. People shouldn't have to pay to get information from public officials," he said. Yet the bill still moves forward, with Pacheco arguing that agencies across the state face an overwhelming volume of broad requests. What neither side disputes is that the current system allows significant delays even for documents the government has already publicly announced.
Ginny LaRoe of the First Amendment Coalition argues the solution is simpler: major state contracts should be proactively published online the moment they're finalized, with only minor redactions for personal information. "You should have that document in your hands. You should've had it in your hand the day they were talking about it," she said. Umberg signaled openness to the idea. "I think there's a world where we make them do that," he replied. "It's up to us to motivate them to do so."
The unanswered questions pile up as the weeks accumulate. How was the Baby2Baby deal structured? How were competing bids scored? What was the procurement process? These are not obscure matters of internal administration—they concern how the state spends millions of dollars on a program affecting vulnerable families. Yet the machinery of public records law, designed to ensure accountability, has instead created a buffer between announcement and disclosure. If the state meets its latest deadline, Californians will have waited seventy days from the governor's announcement to see the contract he promoted at a Capitol press conference.
Citas Notables
People shouldn't have to tell us why they want that information. People shouldn't have to pay to get information from public officials.— Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg
You should have that document in your hands. You should've had it in your hand the day they were talking about it.— Ginny LaRoe, First Amendment Coalition
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that this particular contract took so long to release? Isn't some delay normal in government?
The delay itself is the story. The governor held a public press conference announcing this deal. It's not a secret project. The law says these records must be released promptly. Instead, the state spent 24 days just deciding whether to release them at all, then another six weeks actually producing them.
But what's the real harm? The contract will eventually come out.
The harm is that by the time it does, the narrative is already set. The governor has made his announcement, the program is underway, and public scrutiny arrives late. That's not accountability—that's theater followed by paperwork.
So you're saying the delay is intentional?
I'm saying the system allows it. Whether it's intentional or just bureaucratic inertia, the effect is the same: the public gets information on the government's timeline, not on a timeline that actually serves democracy.
What about AB 1821? Is that making things worse?
It's making it easier for things to stay worse. The bill extends the legal windows agencies have to respond. Agencies say they're overwhelmed with requests. That might be true. But the answer shouldn't be to make it legal to wait longer—it should be to publish the big stuff proactively.
And if they did that?
Then you'd see the contract the day the governor announces it. No request necessary. No waiting. That's what transparency actually looks like.