Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221994 - 1.46 (AP TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s. L Contra erre _ Phil Batchelor, County Administrator . a FROM: •i�� Costa g - s 40� County March 15, 1994 DATE: sra cbih+� SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 2524 (Bowen) RE POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO RECOVER THE COST OF DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING ELECTRONIC FILES OF DATA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: EXPRESS the Board' s concerns regarding the provisions of AB 2524 and REQUEST the author to consider amendments designed to eliminate those concerns . BACKGROUND: Under current law, many County department provide access to data to the public for free or at minimal cost. However, in other cases, departments have reformulated this data and made it available in an electronic format which is easier to access than are the raw documents . The development of these alternative formats, the capital cost of the necessary equipment to store and produce the reformatted product and the maintenance of these files and equipment are often expensive. When departments go to the trouble and cost of producing a product which others are willing to purchase, all of the costs associated with the development, production and maintenance of the product are included in the fee which is charged. Assemblywoman Bowen has introduced AB 2524 , which can be interpreted as eliminating the possibility of recovering these development, production and maintenance costs . The bill provides that any agency which has information available in an electronic format shall make that information available in the electronic format when requested by. any person. The bill goes on to provide that " . . .an agency shall not charge the requester more than the actual cost to the agency of providing the information. . . " . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: Qzk ddd�����/�lzzl 11_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON }1t-a-'c 22, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMMSTRATOR BY DEPUTY -2- If this language is read to mean that the only cost which can be recovered is the cost of the tape or disk to duplicate the document, plus the actual run time for a computer, then it will never be possible to recover the costs of developing, producing and maintaining these records and files in an electronic format. This will tend to discourage innovative department heads from developing these products which are helpful to the public and for which selected elements of the public are willing to pay. The County Clerk-Recorder has recommended that these concerns be expressed to the Legislature. His memorandum is attached. If the Board of Supervisors is in agreement, we would recommend that these concerns be expressed to Assemblywoman Bowen and an effort be made to develop amendments which will be acceptable to the author that will protect the right of a department head to develop an innovative product and market it to his or her clients as Mr. Weir has done. cc: County Administrator Clerk-Recorder County Counsel Auditor-Controller Assessor Acting Municipal Court Administrator MEMO TO : Claude Van Marter FROM: Steve Weir, County Clerk DATE: February 9, 1994 RE: AB 2524 (Brown) I am concerned about AB 2524 and I would like to express that concern to the legislature via the Board of Supervisors. As we enter the information age, I see much of our job in government as recognizing that we are in the information business. Simplistically stated, we receive information from people and we charge them to give us that information. If we can reconstitute or reformulate that information into a more convenient format, private interests are more than happy to pay us for that new format. This department and several others receive data and charge a fee for so doing. We charge people to file court documents, to record documents affecting the transfer of property interest, we charge people for marriage licenses etc. The primary form of this data is made available to the public for review at no charge. However, if a department wants to automate and recast that data into another medium such as on magnetic tape or compact disc, the reformulation of that data is expensive, both in terms of data entry. and in capital costs for that data storage and retrieval . The reformulation of this data is expensive and the market value ,of the reformulated data is often high. The opportunity to produce a business plan to finance a new technology is based on being able to recover all or some actual costs. As an example, people file legal documents with the courts. These are public records and the public has a right to view either the actual document or a copy such as microfilm. However, as a business decision, we choose to create an electronic index of those documents and we capture other pertinent data off of those documents for our database as well . To do this, we pay salary and equipment costs, maintenance and upgrade costs to capture this data. People wanting access to this data are asked to pay a prorata cost for the privilege of accessing our data. If this bill says that we must produce a copy of our database at only the cost of, the tape and the actual computer time to run the tape, we will lose the opportunity to market the reformulated data. With money for automation tight, those in local government who are innovative and able to reformulate data into a more convenient and accessible form should be given the opportunity to market that data in a way that will help recover some of the investment. This is were we can have a public/private partnership where both entities can benefit from the new form of the data. It' s easier and more convenient for the Clerk to have court records listed on a database. It is also easier for people and firms wanting access to our data to have access to our electronic database. So, while people still have free access to our court files, if they want access to our database, we actually charge an access fee that recognizes some of the costs of providing for the data entry and the hardware costs to produce that database. As long as an agency keeps data in a public access mode, any reformulation of that data should be exempt from the "actual cost only" provisions of this legislation. The "market" is starving for this reformulated data. They are willing to pay their prorata share to have access. While I know that this legislation is intended to serve the public, I do not believe that the public is served if , due to a lack of funds, governmental agencies are unable to finance new technologies. I believe that there are exceptions to my philosophy. In practice, I do not charge the press for access to my database and I do not charge other governmental agencies for access. Not only do I actually sell private access to my civil court records, I also sell monthly tapes of such information including Fictitious Business Names in the Recorder' s Office. This is a (profitable) good program for the County. Some day, I hope to convert the court' s documents to optical discs. This will be extraordinarily beneficial for the courts. and for the public. It may very well be possible to develop a remote access program for lawyers and interested businesses which house actual court documents. A fee structure can be developed to give remote access to this data. If, we must pay for such a program and only be able to charge the actual costs of a disc and the costs of transferring the data, I doubt that I will ever have ,the funds to finance such a program without some sort of private business plan. It would be too bad if this legislation, which is designed to give access to governmental data actually had a chilling effect, financially, on the development and implementation of new technologies. Is there any way to find out what the authors want to accomplish and to express the need for a business point-of-view from the governmental side of this argument? Part of my whole records management program will be focusing on the development of markets for County data and ways to repackage our data into a market attractive format. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1993-94 REGULAR SESSION L' ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2524 Introduced by Assembly Member Bowen (Principal coauthor: Senator Kopp) January 14, 1994 An act to amend Sections 6256 and 6257 of, and to add Section 6256.5 to, the Government Code, relating to public records. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2524, as introduced, Bowen. Public records. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, provides, among other things, that any person may receive a copy of any identifiable public record upon payment of fees covering the direct costs of duplication, or any applicable statutory fee. This bill would expressly provide that any agency that has information that constitutes an identifiable public record that is available in an electronic format shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, make that information available in the electronic format,when requested by any person at the actual cost of providing the information in that format. This requirement would impose a state-mandated local program with respect to local agencies. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 99 90 AB 2524 — 2 — The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 1 SECTION 1. Section 6256 of the Government Code is 2 amended to read: 3 6256. Any person may receive a copy of any 4 identifiable public record or copy thereof. Upon request, 5 an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to 6 do so. Computer data shall be provided iii a fer 7 EleterwA by the ageney pursuant to Section 6256.5. 8 Each agency, upon any request for a copy of records 9 shall determine within 10 days after the receipt of such 10 request whether to comply with the request and shall 11 immediately notify the person making the request of 12 such determination and the reasons therefor. 13 SEC. 2. Section 6256.5 is added to the Government 14 Code, to read: 15 6256.5. (a) Any agency that has information that 16 constitutes an identifiable public record that is available 17 in an electronic format shall, unless otherwise pr o- hibited 18 by law, make that information available in the electronic 19 format when requested by any person. 20 (b) When providing information in an electronic 21 format pursuant to subdivision (a), an agency shall not 22 charge the requester more than the actual cost to. the 23 agency of providing the information, unless the agency 24 contracts with another party to,produce the information 25 in a particular format, in which case the agency may 26 charge the requester only the amount that is charged to 27 and paid by the agency exclusively for the creation of the 28 requested copies.' 29 (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit 30 an agency to make information available only in an 31 electronic format. 32 SEC. 3. Section 6257 of the Government Code is 33 amended to read: 34 6257. Except with respect to public records exempt 35 by express provisions of law from disclosure,, each state or 36 local agency, upon any request for a copy of records, 37 which reasonably 'describes an identifiable record, or 38 information produced therefrom, shall make the records 99 130 - 3 — AB 2524 1 promptly available to any person, upon payment of fees 2 covering direct costs of duplication or of production in is 3 an electronic format pursuant to Section 6256.5, or a 4 statutory fee, if applicable. Any reasonably segregable iy 5 portion of a record shall be provided to any person 6 requesting such record after deletion of the portions to 7 which are exempt by law. Eft 8 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act 9 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California is 10 Constitution because the local agency or school district ;h 11 has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or ill 12 assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of of 13 service mandated by this act. Notwithstanding Section 14 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise it 15 specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become 16 operative on the same date that the act takes effect at 17 pursuant to the California Constitution. le -d is is A to ,y )n Ly co te it O n is A )r s, )r Is 30 99 140