Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><, <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />C"':l <br />.-f <br />~ <br />.... <br /> <br />A Study of GIS 10' the Colorado D8Ilartment 01 Nlilu,al Resources <br /> <br />Octobe, 9. 1992 <br /> <br />nothing to do with that agency's mandated function. The operation of such a shop might <br />distract the agericy from its mandated functions as well as injure the private sector by <br />selling infonnation in a subsidized fashion, since the agency would not be dependent on <br />sales proceeds to stay in business. This should not pose any difficulty for DNR if the <br />agency does opt to charge fees for information generated using a GIS, since the <br />information contained in that system would be infonnation generated, developed and/or <br />maintained as part of public business of DNR. <br /> <br />As an example, suppose that a private entity were to obtain a copy of the database(s) that <br />contained a certain requested element of the public record. Then a requester would have the <br />option of requesting a, copy of that element from the state agency or from the private, <br />for-profit entity, putting these two into a competitive stance for the requester's dollars. <br />Given just the blanket prohibition on competition with private entities, the state agency <br />would have to refuse to provide the information and direct any requesters to contact the <br />private flClll. But, with the new clauses in CRS 24-72-205, the agency would now be <br />specifically "otherwise authorized" to offer the infonnation to the public, at whatever price <br />it uniformly charges others in the same class, subject to the equal protection concerns <br />mentioned elsewhere in this report. Arguably, this authorization would allow the agency to <br />produce a copy of the ~tabase(s) containing the information requested, for the private, for- <br />profit remarketing entity and not be precluded from producing another copy for a <br />competitor of this entity at the same fee (which would be lower than the first private entity <br />would sell it for, given its for-profit nature), nor be precluded from prod,ucing a copy of <br />just the specific infonnation requested by the requester, whether or not a fee is charged. To <br />allow otherwise would defeat the purposes and goals of the Public Records law, in that the <br />access to any database that has been copied for a private entity would then be controlled by <br />that entity and not by the public agency. Creative "exclusive" licensing provisions Jiave <br />established public/private partnerships for the dissemination of government owned <br />information in other states. Such arrangements must include a guarantee of accountability <br />and fair and equal access to taxpayers' information assets. <br /> <br />GOVERNMENTAL VS. PROPRIETARY POWERS: LIMITS ON THE <br />EXERCISE OF PROPRIETARY AUTHORITY BY STATE GOVERNMENT <br /> <br />Discussions of public access to governmental information generally include the issue of <br />"selling" government data to private sector, or even other public sector, entities. "Selling <br />data" sometimes implies that the governmental entity is engaged in a profit-making activity <br />which is outside its "governmental" powers -- the traditional "health, safety, and welfare" <br />powers typically exercised by governments on behalf of their citizens. Some state and local <br />governments do in fact engage in proprietary activities, such as generating electricity. It <br />has been suggested that the municipal utility model could be followed by jurisdictions as <br />they seek to disseminate data from their information systems, including GIS. ~ ~ <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG,aphics. Inc. <br /> <br />10 <br />