Archives for December 2006

From the Idaho Business Review

by By Eddie Kovsky

Jack Sjostrom’s company, Sentry Dynamics, collects information on Idaho properties and compiles it into a software application. His customers can access it through a Web browser to learn about individual parcels, to find maps and to facilitate real estate transactions all over the state.

Rather than traveling to courthouses or searching Web sites, Sentry Dynamics customers use the software to access data in one place.

It’s not that easy for Sjostrom. In fact, some public agencies are making things more and more difficult for him and others to stay in business.

Access to public electronic data isn’t always free or even provided for a reasonable fee. The cost of obtaining geographic information system (GIS) data varies widely from county to county, Sjostrom said.

Basic GIS information from Latah County is 10 cents per parcel. Order data for more than 15,000 parcels and it’s a flat fee of $1,500. Throw in ownership information about the parcels and it costs 5 cents more per parcel.

Want your data to include roads, the rural address, zoning districts or precincts? Each requires additional fees.

“That parcel information is a very small file that fits on an email attachment,” Sjostrom said. “The cost of copying on a CD and mailing it to us shouldn’t be more than $25.”

In contrast, Ada County shares map data amongst various agencies, said Mike McClenahan, administrative services manager. Basic map data is available through a subscription, he said. A CD with all parcel data is available each quarter for $100, said Anne Kawalec, land records supervisor.

Some departments create maps for specific projects, usually for internal use.

“But if somebody asked for that, we’d probably just give it to them,” McClenahan said.

Like Ada County, Nez Perce County charges a few hundred a year to copy information, Sjostrom said. But Bonner County refused to share GIS data until Sjostrom sued them, he said.

“Now we pay $150 per request,” Sjostrom said

In Kootenai County, access to GIS information is free, he said.

Idaho law has several statutes covering access to public information. Idaho Statute 9-338 states that a public agency can’t charge a fee that exceeds the cost of copying information.

But there is a specific exception to county governments and GIS data. Statute 31-875 (2) allows a county to collect fees not just for the release of public information, but also for the development and maintenance of the system itself.

Sjostrom thinks the laws just allow county commissioners to be creative about their pricing. He said he has taken up the issue with prosecuting attorneys in several counties, but it hasn’t gotten him very far.

“They say it’s very costly to install and support these GIS systems and they need funding to support that,” Sjostrom said. “But I question that because it’s no different from any other management system the county uses. Why is the mapping system unique?”

Not all counties use the same systems or have the same level of sophistication, so using fees to cover development costs is justified, said Dan Chadwick, executive director of the Idaho Association of Counties.

“Every county is trying to make an honest estimation of what providing the information costs,” he said. “Not all the data is compiled in the same way. Systems are part of the cost of providing information.”

Sjostrom is far from satisfied with that answer.

“Taxes pay for equipment,” he said. “All we should pay for is material and staff time.”

Sjostrom has decided to take up his grievance with the state legislature. When members of the legislature visited Post Falls last month, he met them in a hallway and handed out a letter explaining his predicament:

“I fully understand the intent of this law as it was written prior to the technological advancements we are now accustomed to … It was a way for counties to accommodate the costs of technology advancement and new data development. This justification however, does not conform with our system today …”

So far, Sjostrom has only heard from State Sen. Brad Little, R-Emmett.

“I thought we’d fixed this a year ago,” Little said. “I don’t think we should expect we’re going to provide a source of income to buy new equipment and personnel. We need to ask the counties to sit down with the title companies and everybody that uses those services and come up with some reasonable fee. We might have to write legislation, but I’d much rather have them reach something reasonable on their own accord.”

Aside from the implications for his own business, Sjostrom believes the current fees for public records affect everyone.

“We don’t feel it’s fair that five or 10 individuals asking for this data have to pay,” he said. “Does each one of those people have to pay thousands? Does the 11th person get it for free? There needs to be some systematic approach to this at a state wide level.”

From the Idaho Business Review

From The Spokesman-Review

Betsy Z. Russell
Staff writer

Idaho’s public records law says all public records are open to the public unless they’re specifically exempted, and there’s no exemption for explicit e-mails sent by public employees on the job.

“There’s no specific exemption for e-mails, for any communication,” said Deb Kristensen, a media law attorney in Boise and a partner with Givens-Pursley law firm. “The public records act absolutely makes everything open. When a public employee is using public resources to conduct his or her business, those writings, regardless of form, are going to be considered public records.”

Kootenai County has repeatedly denied public release of certain county employee e-mails on the basis that the messages are private, even though they are created using publicly owned computer systems and the county’s policy states that e-mails are public records.

Attorneys for county employees have argued that public employees have a constitutional right to privacy that overrides the state open records statute.

Using that argument, the county is withholding an undisclosed number of e-mails between Kootenai County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Rick Baughman and three women who worked in his office. County officials have cited the privacy argument in declining to release the records.

In 2005, the county used the same argument in refusing to release 889 e-mail messages between County Prosecutor Bill Douglas and Marina Kalani, the former coordinator of a county juvenile court program.

Idaho District Judge John Stegner, in a July 2005 decision, ruled that county employees’ e-mails are public record. The case involved a lawsuit by The Spokesman-Review against Kootenai County for release of the Douglas-Kalani e-mails.

Douglas and Kalani appealed that ruling to the Idaho Supreme Court, but Douglas later dropped his appeal, while Kalani’s is pending. The court is not yet scheduled to hear arguments in the case.

Idaho’s Public Records Law contains dozens of exemptions from disclosure for specific types of information, from investigatory records of a law enforcement agency while the investigation is in progress, to medical records, trade secrets, and information in people’s individual income tax returns. But it says nothing about personal e-mails between government employees.

“So if they choose to use inappropriate language or include improper attachments, those are all going to be considered public record,” Kristensen said. “It’s just poor judgment in terms of using that language or putting those attachments on. But it doesn’t change the nature of the record. It’s still a public record.”

State Rep. George Eskridge, R-Dover, who has spoken out on public records issues in the state House of Representatives, said, “My opinion is when you’re using a government-supplied computer, the information you put on there is public information open to the public. I guess that makes it pretty simple.”

In response to a recent request for employee e-mails, the county on Tuesday gave The Spokesman-Review some sexually explicit e-mail exchanges between Baughman and a woman who worked in the prosecutor’s office and has accused him of sexual harassment.

Citing its privacy argument, the county had intended to withhold the e-mails, which included nude photos and sex videos, but inadvertently gave them to the newspaper on a computer disc.

“It just seems like this is the kind of information the public should be entitled to see, if your public officials are sending around naked pictures of people,” Kristensen said. “Is that really what they should be spending their time doing? The public has a right to know that.”

Eskridge said public employees at work should not be sending explicit e-mails.

“It’s not the right thing to do, it’s just not the right use of government-supplied equipment,” he said. “I mean, you’re in a public office, doing business for the public, and all transactions that you do should be in the interest of the public. If you want to do something privately, do it on your own equipment, or do it by personal mail that you’re paying for.”

In his July 2005 ruling, Stegner ruled that the public has a right to read the full contents of the e-mail exchanges between Douglas and Kalani.

Stegner ruled the e-mail messages fall under the state’s open records law because they were written on county property and contain information “relating to the conduct or administration of the public’s business.”

The judge rejected arguments by Douglas and Kalani that releasing the messages would infringe on their constitutional right to privacy and that the contents of the messages were also protected as employee records.

“E-mails between a supervisor and his subordinate are not personnel information; they are communications regarding the operation of the public’s business,” Stegner wrote.

From The Spokesman-Review