For the CA Supreme Court ruling (PDF), visit: CA Supreme Court Decision July 8, 2013
To the extent that the term ―computer mapping system is ambiguous, the constitutional canon requires us to interpret it in a way that maximizes the public‘s access to information unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary. (Officeof Inspector General v. Superior Court, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p.709.) As explained above, we find nothing in the text, statutory context, or legislative history of the term―computer mapping system‖ that allows us to say the Legislature clearly sought to exclude GIS formatted parcel data from the definition of a public record when it can be disclosed without any accompanying software.Applying the interpretive rule set forth in article I, section 3, subdivision (b)(2), we must conclude that section 6254.9(b)‘s exclusion of―computer mapping systems from the definition of a public record does not encompass a parcel database in a GIS file format. Contrary to what the County contends, this reading of the statute does not ―repeal or nullify‖ a ―statutory exception to the right of access to public records‖ in contravention of article I, section 3, subdivision (b)(5). Our holding simply construes the terms of section 6254.9 in light of the constitutional mandate that a statute ―shall be narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.(Cal. Const., art. I, §3, subd. (b)(2).)We note that this interpretation is consistent with a 2005 opinion letter issued by the Attorney General in response to a request by a member of the Assembly to determine whether ― parcel boundary map data maintained in an electronic format by a county assessor [is] subject to public inspection and copying under provisions of the California Public Records Act (88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 153, 153 (2005).) The opinion letter explained that ―the term ̳computer mapping systems‘ in section 6254.9 does not refer to or include basic maps and boundary information per se (i.e., the basic data compiled, updated, and maintained by county assessors), but rather denotes unique computer programs to process such data using mapping functions original programs that have been designed and produced by a public agency.‖ (88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 159.) Accordingly, the Attorney General concluded, ―parcel map data maintained in an electronic format by a county assessor does not qualify as a ̳computer mapping system‘under the exemption provisions of section 6254.9 (88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 159) and must be provided upon request as a public record at a fee limited to the direct cost of producing the copy (id.at pp.163–164). As noted above, the record here indicates that 47 counties in California maintain GIS-formatted parcel base maps and provide access to those GIS-formatted databases as public records. (Ante, at p. 3.) Of those 47 counties, 19 changed their fee policies following the Attorney General‘s opinion letter, according to Sierra Club‘s expert.Because section 6254.9(b) does not exclude GIS-formatted databases like the OC Landbase from the definition of a public record, such databases are subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt from the PRA. Unlike the records at issue in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, the County here does not argue that the OC Landbase is subject to any other exemptions. The fact that the County offered to produce the information underlying the database in an alternative format suggests that no such exemption applies. Similarly, the County‘s general practice of producing the OC Landbase to the public, albeit pursuant to a licensing agreement, suggests that its contents do not implicate any of the confidentiality or other concerns underlying th e exemptions set forth in section 6254. Because the OC Landbase is not excluded from the definition of a public record under section 6254.9(b), and because the County does not argue that the database is otherwise exempt from disclosure, the County must produce the OC Landbase in response to Sierra Club‘s request―in any electronic format in which it holds the information‖ (§6253.9 (a)(1)) at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication (§§ 6253.9 (a)(2),6253, subd. (b)).
From the National State Association of Archaeologists Spring 2009 Newsletter (Vol XVII, No. 1):
In Kentucky, George Crothers developed a GIS site file system, and developed a fee-for-use of the digital data for contract archaeologists, with no fee for access to paper data. One contract archaeologist has filed a freedom-of-information suit, saying that access should be on a no-fee basis. The SHPO offce in Kentucky has an exemption for archaeological data to state freedom-of-access laws. Nick Bellantoni has sent a letter of support for Crothers to the circuit court hearing the case.
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Franklin Circuit Court, Division I, Civil Action No. 07-CI- 828, University of Kentucky Office of State Archaeology (Plantiff) v. Charles M. Niquette et al. (Defendents), dated October 27, 2008: http://www.uiowa.edu/~osa/nasa/OpinionandOrder10-27-08.pdf
The Better Government Association and National Freedom of Information Coalition issued a white paper in May 2008 that gives 38 out of 50 states an “F” grade in overall responsiveness to FOI requests. The results of the study were published by Todayscandidates.com (see blog).
This study gave Wisconsin a grade of “F,” so it is perhaps not surprising that 96 percent of Wisconsinites who responded to a recent survey conducted by the Midwest Democracy Network “expressed support for keeping government transparent and honest. Wisconsin citizens favored right-to-know laws more than any other proposal for making government work better,” reported a Wisconsin State Journal editorial on July 8, 2008.
Fpr the following NFOIC FOI-related white papers, visit the following link: http://www.nfoic.org/resources/white_papers.html
States failing FOI responsiveness — The Better Government Associationand the National Freedom of Information Coalition have united to review the recourse afforded citizens in the public records laws of all 50 states, and the conclusions make for some relentlessly depressing reading.
Federal Controls on State Information Disclosure — Never before has the clash between an individual’s privacy and the public’s right to access been more apparent, or more misunderstood. The National Freedom of Information Coalition highlights that debate with the release of a new report examining public access to state records. The report, “Federal Controls on State Information Disclosure: FERPA, HIPAA and DPPA,” by attorney and FOI expert Harry Hammitt, will be released to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government at its Nov. 17 conference.
Privatization: Its Impact on Public Record Access — In this, the first of a series of working papers initiated by the NFOIC, Harry examines how state legislatures and the courts have dealt with keeping public information accessible as privatization has threatened to change the freedom of information landscape.