Many taxpayers may be unaware of the costly and complex processes associated with requesting public records. Numerous factors often prevent members of the public from easily retrieving information they have a right to obtain, and the fees associated with public records requests are central to the issues of transparency and public access in government. I’d like to shed some light on this issue and propose some suggestions to help us begin clearing a path toward a more simplified process of obtaining public records.
Put simply, the costs incurred by agencies in the fulfillment of public records requests are passed on to taxpayers as fees that represent, in most cases, the labor and material required to reproduce documents for the request. While these costs vary from state to state and agency to agency, I believe that government entities can largely improve the way they approach documentation and record keeping to prevent taxpayers from shouldering irresponsible and unfair costs.1 That is, all levels of government must anticipate the needs of public records requests in the design and format of documents and archives. This is especially true of documents that are frequently the subject of public scrutiny, such as e-mails, duty statements, procurement documents, documents concerning governmental regulation, and accounting documents. Some local government agencies have begun to recognize the need to streamline the process of responding to public requests for records like these.
A recent report in KM World on Pasco County Florida’s move to an e-mail archiving system bears this out. The county previously employed a system that required a “time sensitive, manual process, which prevented Pasco County staff from being as responsive to public requests as they wanted to be.” The report quotes Pasco County technical architect Kristine Johnson, who claimed that meeting public record requests motivated the change: “As a public entity, it is critical that we be able to respond to record requests in a timely fashion—we simply cannot delay in sharing information.” This is a small-scale example, but it is the kind of response needed at the larger levels of government, one that makes the process more efficient by keeping in mind the needs of public records requests when selecting an archival format.
In this age of smartphones and telecommuting, electronic mail communications are also a central component of local and state government operations. Thus, it is no surprise that e-mails are among the most commonly requested documents sought by members of the public attempting to understand the decision-making processes in government institutions. Unfortunately, the expenses that accompany public records requests for e-mails are oftentimes not only cost-prohibitive, but entirely unreasonable. According to an article published by The Boston Globe, a volunteer editor for a Somerville news blog requested information about research on “parking tickets and the city’s responses to citizen complaints.” Officials from the City of Somerville informed the editor it would cost him more than $200,000 to fulfill his request. In a related matter, a request by The Boston Globe for e-mails from the City of Boston revealed that an aide to a government official inappropriately deleted several e-mails that should have been preserved. Exorbitant fees and a lack of safeguards to prevent the unauthorized destruction of government e-mails undermines the spirit of the public records legislation on which requests are predicated and are inconsistent with an open democracy.
Bureaucratic roadblocks like these must be removed to better facilitate the process of accessing public information, and as I see it, there are ways to accomplish this goal. Implementing operational processes and intuitive document retention practices will reduce expenses for both institutions and taxpayers by making the process of responding to public records requests less disruptive to the daily work lives of governmental workers. For organizations and individuals who make repeated and voluminous requests, one idea for minimizing costs and disruptions is using publicly-accessible API and Web Services. Although the breadth, depth, and complexity of methods available to make government more open to taxpayers vary significantly, taxpayers deserve the right to access simplified, cost-free, and automated systems to retrieve public records. Critics might argue that an open government is not wise in this post-9/11 era, but I believe that transparency and security are not mutually exclusive.
If this post resonated with you, please take a moment to let me know whether you agree or disagree with my opinion, using the comment feature shown below. Similarly, I invite you to stay informed on topics of interest to you and comment on related ideas by clicking the “Like” buttons displayed at the top of the govUNLEASHED Facebook page.
In my next blog post, I will examine the advantages and pitfalls of allowing individuals with leadership responsibilities to hold the same position within a government agency for extended periods of time without substantive metrics for measuring the performance of their agency/division/unit. Specifically, I will discuss at what point such an environment begins to undermine an agency’s ability to carry out its mission.
Works Cited
Put simply, the costs incurred by agencies in the fulfillment of public records requests are passed on to taxpayers as fees that represent, in most cases, the labor and material required to reproduce documents for the request. While these costs vary from state to state and agency to agency, I believe that government entities can largely improve the way they approach documentation and record keeping to prevent taxpayers from shouldering irresponsible and unfair costs.1 That is, all levels of government must anticipate the needs of public records requests in the design and format of documents and archives. This is especially true of documents that are frequently the subject of public scrutiny, such as e-mails, duty statements, procurement documents, documents concerning governmental regulation, and accounting documents. Some local government agencies have begun to recognize the need to streamline the process of responding to public requests for records like these.
A recent report in KM World on Pasco County Florida’s move to an e-mail archiving system bears this out. The county previously employed a system that required a “time sensitive, manual process, which prevented Pasco County staff from being as responsive to public requests as they wanted to be.” The report quotes Pasco County technical architect Kristine Johnson, who claimed that meeting public record requests motivated the change: “As a public entity, it is critical that we be able to respond to record requests in a timely fashion—we simply cannot delay in sharing information.” This is a small-scale example, but it is the kind of response needed at the larger levels of government, one that makes the process more efficient by keeping in mind the needs of public records requests when selecting an archival format.
In this age of smartphones and telecommuting, electronic mail communications are also a central component of local and state government operations. Thus, it is no surprise that e-mails are among the most commonly requested documents sought by members of the public attempting to understand the decision-making processes in government institutions. Unfortunately, the expenses that accompany public records requests for e-mails are oftentimes not only cost-prohibitive, but entirely unreasonable. According to an article published by The Boston Globe, a volunteer editor for a Somerville news blog requested information about research on “parking tickets and the city’s responses to citizen complaints.” Officials from the City of Somerville informed the editor it would cost him more than $200,000 to fulfill his request. In a related matter, a request by The Boston Globe for e-mails from the City of Boston revealed that an aide to a government official inappropriately deleted several e-mails that should have been preserved. Exorbitant fees and a lack of safeguards to prevent the unauthorized destruction of government e-mails undermines the spirit of the public records legislation on which requests are predicated and are inconsistent with an open democracy.
Bureaucratic roadblocks like these must be removed to better facilitate the process of accessing public information, and as I see it, there are ways to accomplish this goal. Implementing operational processes and intuitive document retention practices will reduce expenses for both institutions and taxpayers by making the process of responding to public records requests less disruptive to the daily work lives of governmental workers. For organizations and individuals who make repeated and voluminous requests, one idea for minimizing costs and disruptions is using publicly-accessible API and Web Services. Although the breadth, depth, and complexity of methods available to make government more open to taxpayers vary significantly, taxpayers deserve the right to access simplified, cost-free, and automated systems to retrieve public records. Critics might argue that an open government is not wise in this post-9/11 era, but I believe that transparency and security are not mutually exclusive.
If this post resonated with you, please take a moment to let me know whether you agree or disagree with my opinion, using the comment feature shown below. Similarly, I invite you to stay informed on topics of interest to you and comment on related ideas by clicking the “Like” buttons displayed at the top of the govUNLEASHED Facebook page.
In my next blog post, I will examine the advantages and pitfalls of allowing individuals with leadership responsibilities to hold the same position within a government agency for extended periods of time without substantive metrics for measuring the performance of their agency/division/unit. Specifically, I will discuss at what point such an environment begins to undermine an agency’s ability to carry out its mission.
1 In California, according to The First Amendment Project, duplicating records usually costs between 10 and 25 cents. A recent report in the Western Maryland’s The Herald Mail found that the cost of public records requests varies from 15 cents (Washington County government) to $5 for the first page and $1 for each additional page (Washington County Sheriff’s Department).
The First Amendment Project. “A Pocket Guide to the California
"Responding Faster to Public Record Requests." KM World. KM World Magazine. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
Schotz, Andrew. “Cost of Copying Public Records Varies Widely.” The Herald-Mail 1 May 2010. herald-mail.com. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
Rezendes, Michael. “High Costs Can Make Open Records Seem Closed.” The Boston Globe 24 Sep. 2009. bostonglobe.com. Web. 9 Oct. 2011.
