Tribal financial information: public records: exemption.

Assembly Member Wallis frames tribal financial information as confidential within the public funding process, seeking to shield records tied to financial assistance from public disclosure. The measure amends the state’s public records framework and adds a new chapter of the Government Code to codify this confidentiality framework, defining who counts as an Indian tribe, what constitutes financial assistance, and what counts as a public agency. It applies statewide to all cities, including charter cities, and requires confidentiality provisions in agency–tribe financial assistance agreements.

The core mechanism treats records that contain tribal financial information as confidential, not public records, even where other exemptions might apply. Public agencies would be required to insert explicit confidentiality language into contracts with tribes related to financial assistance, ensuring that disclosed information remains confidential and not subject to public inspection. The bill also characterizes such records as records of a sovereign nation, not subject to disclosure by private citizens or the state, while noting that federal or state exemptions may still apply where relevant.

Implementation would place new duties on both public and local agencies, including reviewing existing agreements to ensure confidentiality terms are present, applying confidential handling procedures for relevant records, and training staff. The measure contemplates a potential state-mandated local program, with a mechanism for reimbursement of costs if the state determines local costs are mandated, though the text does not specify an appropriation or penalties for noncompliance. An operative date is not stated within the bill’s language, leaving timing to general enactment rules.

From a policy perspective, the legislation frames confidentiality as essential to respecting tribal sovereignty while enabling financial assistance decisions. The accompanying findings address constitutional considerations about limiting public access to certain records and the measure’s applicability across local governments. Stakeholders include tribes, which gain formal confidentiality protections and contract-based assurances; public agencies, which bear new administrative duties; and the general public, for whom access to related records would be narrowed under the new framework.