[11510] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Calif Senate Pub Rcds Task Force about to trash equal access!!!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Warren)
Tue Jul 29 20:05:12 1997
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:16:34 -0500
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[TIME-SENSITIVE! Please repost and recirculate widely! NOW!]
California guv'ment insider hustlers are about to SCREW modern public
records access! On August 7th (surprise! -- exactly while the most number
of citizens are on vacation).
My apologies for the length of the following, but it is the verbatum *KEY*
proposal for final adoption by the California Senate Task Force on
Electronic Access to Public Records, to be recommended for inclusion in
Senate Bill 74 (by the *former* open-govt advocate, Sen. Quentin Kopp
[I-San Francisco].
It will radically revise the equal-access and low-cost principles of the
state's CPRA - California Public Records Act -- that have been in place for
decades.
The Task Force has been dominated by public-agency bureaucrats who
zealously demand the freedom to charge MUCH MORE than the "direct cost of
duplication," that has been the limit on public-records copying fees for
decades!
And this would totally demolish the equally long-standing principle that
*access* (as opposed to presumed-paper copies) would be free, in the case
of remote, online access to already-computerized public records!
IF ENACTED, EVERY wee-profit BBS and ISP THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE PROVIDE
PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ALREADY-COMPUTERIZED AT TAX-PAYER EXPENSE,
WOULD HAVE TO PAY RADICALLY-INCREASED COSTS TO THE AGENCY PROVIDING THE
RECORDS.
THIS WILL HAVE A *MONUMENTALLY* CHILLING EFFECT ON MODERN/ONLINE PUBLIC ACCESS!
Instead of the long-standing principle of charging *only* direct copying
costs -- now that copying computer records would often cost less than the
cost of accounting for the pennies it costs to make the copy -- *now*,
powerful bureaucrats who can't find enough money to spend want to throw the
door wide open, collecting *all* the costs for *all* of, "actual cost of
providing the record, which may include the costs of search, retrieval,
review, segregation, and duplication."
There is no prohibition against including in those "actual costs," things
such as prorated staff retirement benefits, janitorial services, building
and equipment depreciation, etc. -- as has already been repeatedly *urged*
by some bureaucrats.
"For profit" researchers and writers -- that is, those expecting to be
*paid* <gasp!> for their independent or free-lance efforts, would be forced
to pay the same massively-increased costs.
However, the politically powerful California Newspaper Publishers
Association has had included an exemption for themselves and anyone working
for a "a news gathering organization." [Sec. 1.(1)b., below]
If you care about *equal* and *duplication-cost-only* access to *modern*
[computerized] public records in Californica <sic!>, SPEAK UP *RIGHT* NOW!
* *Especially*, call and write the Editorial-Page Editors of your local
newspapers. Pronto!
* Call and write your elected so-called state AND city and county
"representatives" -- and ask them to clearly state their position!
(Well-paid lobbyists for the Calif cities [League of California Cities] and
counties [California State Association of Counties] have been the most
ardent, insistant and zealous -- and effective -- opponents of free pub
rcds access and dup-cost-only pub rcds copies. It is the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WHO ARE MOST OPPOSED to equal copying-cost-only public access!
Increasingly! All of this decade!)
(Interestingly, Silicon Valley's Santa Clara County has LED the fight for
higher fees and monopoly sales of public reocrds for much of this decade!)
* And let the members of the Senate Electronic Records Task Force), below
(only *some* of whom are online, know your position -- for what little good
that may do. (Hey!, they want to make more money from their information
monopolies!)
--fed-up-jim
[Protesting its bias, I resigned from this Task Force, some months ago.]
Jim Warren, activist-in-burnout & Contributing Editor (MicroTimes)
jwarren@well.com; 345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062; 415-851-7075
[self-inflating puff: Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award, Playboy
Foundation; James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award, Soc.of Prof.
Journalists-Nor.Cal.; Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award (in its
first year, 1992); founded InfoWorld magazine; the Computers, Freedom &
Privacy confs; blah blah blah]
===
[Kopp aide Teri Burns has run the Senate Task Force since its creation,
last year; Kopp never appeared. Also, don't blame me for the formatting
and line-overruns, below. I tried to explain email formatting to them for
months! --jim]
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Teri Burns <Teri.Burns@SEN.CA.GOV>
>Subject: 1 Last E-records Task Force Meeting
>To: teri.burns@SEN.CA.GOV, acalonne@netcom.com, sdavid@saclaw.lib.ca.us,
> bgivens@acusd.edu, ngould@exec.water.ca.gov, rhhalberg@doit.ca.gov,
> dhalpenny@sanjuan.edu, Gordon Hart <HART_GO@a1.senate.sen.ca.gov>,
> jcjanes@ucdavis.edu, mkassis@oshpd.cahwnet.gov, noblek@AOL.COM,
> lkeay@oshpd.cahwnet.gov, frank@cua.co.scl.ca.us,
> cmays@thecity.sfsu.edu, bytes@calweb.com, freitano@midtown.net,
> rogersja@assembly.ca.gov, comcause@ix.netcom.com,
> rlopez@csacgate.csac.counties.org, jwarren@well.com,
> Dan Friedlander <FRIEDLAND_DA@a1.senate.sen.ca.gov>, tom@cnpa.com,
> winkleme@assembly.ca.gov, CTHALNAN@AOL.COM, ratcliff@capitoltrack.com,
> steven.emmert@lexis-nexis.com, scaqmd@pacbell.net
>
>I'd like to have 1 last meeting to review these 2 drafts (#3 & 4) for possible
>amendments to SB 74.
>
>Please join us in the CNPA conference room on Thursday, August 7th at 9:30am.
>( 1225 8th street, Suite 260, Sacramento, for those who've forgotten)
>We will adjourn in time for lunch.
>
>If there is support for either of these drafts or some revised version, we
>will
>move them forward as amendments. If not, we will simply make available the
>summary document from our prior meeting which indicates areas of consensus and
>controversy surrounding this issue.
>This will be our final meeting. If you cannot come, please provide written
>comments.
>
>There is no version which includes the additional surcharge on commercial
>users
>as we discussed at our last meeting because the Legislative Counsel opinion
>suggests it will likely be viewed as a tax. I believe we determined
>previously
>not to pursue that option if such were the case.
>
>
>Thanks to all who have participated in this lengthy process.
>Please advise me at teri.burns@sen.ca.gov or (916) 324-6928 if you will be
>attending on 8/7.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Teri
>
>
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-description: 3rd revise task force draft
>
>DRAFT #3 7/97
>
>Amendments to SB 74
>
>
>
>1. On page 6, line 29 after the word "so.", add:
>
>Agencies shall provide a copy of an electronic record in the format
>requested, unless, in
>light of surrounding circumstances, it is not reasonable to do so,
>provided that the
>requested format is one which has been used by the agency to create copies
>for its own
>use or for provision to other agencies. Electronic copies of records shall
>be made promptly
>available upon payment of fees as follows:
>
> (1) Except when the records are requested for a commercial
>purpose, electronic copies of
>records shall be made available upon payment of fees representing the
>direct cost of
>duplication or a statutory fee. For purposes of this section, "commercial
>purpose"
>means any use that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of
>the requester or
>person on whose behalf the request is made. Commercial purpose does not
>include any of
>the following:
>
> a. A request made by a 501 (c)(?) nonprofit corporation, so long
>as the information
>requested is not used for any purpose in which the corporation would be
>required to pay
>income tax under state or federal law.
>
> b. a request made by a person who, through contract or employment,
>is a publisher, editor
>or reporter with a news gathering organization and makes the request in
>that capacity for a
>news gathering purpose.
>
>
> (2) For requests in which the information is to be used for any
>commercial purpose, the
>records shall be made available upon payment of the actual cost of
>providing the record,
>which may include the costs of search, retrieval, review, segregation, and
>duplication. All
>funds collected by an agency shall be used by the agency exclusively for
>the purposes
>described in section 6253.1 and for no other purpose. Except as
>authorized by this
>section, no other fees may be charged for copies of records.
>
>Nothing in this section pertaining to information maintained in electronic
>form expands,
>modifies or limits any requirement, exemption, or other provision
>contained elsewhere in
>this chapter.
>
>2. On page 6, line 29, before the word, "Each", add:
>
>"(c)"
>
>and reletter the rest of the section.
>
>3. On page 7, line 31, delete:
>
>"(a) Computerized data shall be provided in a form to be determined by the
>agency."
>
>4. On page 7, line 33, delete:
>
>"(b)"
>
>-
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>___
>
>CORE PARAGRAPH FOR STATEMENT OF INTENT LETTER (to be signed by
>interested parties and filed with the Senate Journal):
>
>In interpreting whether disclosure of a copy of a record in an electronic
>format is reasonable
>under surrounding circumstances, we are mindful of the dictionary
>definitions of the term
>"reasonable." These definitions consistently indicate that the term
>reasonable means
>moderate, inexpensive, fair, suitable under the circumstances, and not
>excessive. Thus, if
>disclosure of a copy of a record in electronic form is consistent with
>these concepts, the
>agency would be expected to make disclosure in that form.
>
>Some examples of circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to
>require compliance
>with the general rule would include the following situations:
>
> * Significant reprogramming or the creation of new software
>would be necessary to fulfill
>the request; and
>
> * The task of redacting or segregating exempt from
>disclosable material would be unduly
>burdensome.
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-description: 4th revise task force draft
>
>DRAFT #4 7/97 without expanded charge
>
>Amendments to SB 74
>
>1. On page 6, line 29 after the word "so.", add:
>
>Agencies shall provide a copy of an electronic record in the format
>requested, unless, in
>light of surrounding circumstances, it is not reasonable to do so,
>provided that the
>requested format is one which has been used by the agency to create copies
>for its own
>use or for provision to other agencies. Electronic copies of records
>shall be made
>promptly available upon payment of fees representing the direct cost of
>duplication or a
>statutory fee.
>
>Nothing in this section pertaining to information maintained in electronic
>form expands,
>modifies or limits any requirement, exemption, or other provision
>contained elsewhere in
>this chapter.
>
>2. On page 7, line 31, delete:
>
>"(a) Computerized data shall be provided in a form to be determined by the
>agency."
>
>3. On page 7, line 33, delete:
>
>"(b)"
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>CORE PARAGRAPH FOR STATEMENT OF INTENT LETTER (to be signed by
>interested parties and filed with the Senate Journal):
>
>In interpreting whether disclosure of a copy of a record in an electronic
>format is reasonable
>under surrounding circumstances, we are mindful of the dictionary
>definitions of the term
>"reasonable." These definitions consistently indicate that the term
>reasonable means
>moderate, inexpensive, fair, suitable under the circumstances, and not
>excessive. Thus, if
>disclosure of a copy of a record in electronic form is consistent with
>these concepts, the
>agency would be expected to make disclosure in that form.
>
>Some examples of circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to
>require compliance
>with the general rule would include the following situations:
>
> * Significant reprogramming or the creation of new software
>would be necessary to fulfill
>the request; and
>
> * The task of redacting or segregating exempt from
>disclosable material would be unduly burdensome.
>
