Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />A Study of GIS fo, the Colorado D8Ilartmenl of Natu,al Resources <br /> <br />Oc:lobe, 9. 1992 <br /> <br />v, <br /> <br />It is declared to be the public policy of this state that all public records shall be open <br />for inspection by any person at reasonable times, except as provided in this part 2 <br />or as otherwise provided by law. CRS 24-72-201. <br /> <br />Within the context of this portion of the Colorado Public Records law, "person" includes <br />corporations, partnerships, finns and associations, as well as individuals. CRS 24-72- <br />202(3). "Public records" was defined to include all "writings made, maintained, or kept by <br />the state or any agency, institution, or political subdivision thereof." CRS 24-72-202(6). <br />Writings include "all books, papers, maps. photographs. cards. tapes, recordings, or other <br />documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics." CRS 24-72- <br />202(7). What this basically means is that any person or business entity may request access <br />to any public record, in whatever form it is kept, at any time during nonna! business hours. <br />Cenain records are excluded from coverage of the public records umbrella but these are <br />mainly personnel records and current law enforcement fIles, which are outside the area of <br />coverage for this report. Also, throughout the Public Records statutes, the person or <br />agency that has custody and control of the public records in question is referred to as the <br />"custodian." CRS 24-72-202(1). <br /> <br />Status of Software <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Most federal FOIA requests are now from commercial users of the information and not <br />related to the original purpose of governmental accountability. This same trend is <br />predictable for states which maintain electronic information management system <br />infrastructure. As a result of this, which some agencies and jurisdictions _ have seen as <br />misuse of open records law, there have developed some dichotometrlc distortions fn-how -, <br />open records law are applied to software. An example of this is the federal Occupational <br />Safety and Health Administration's approach to commercial requests for some of their <br />digital records. Unable to deny the requests, OSHA reluctantly released the information, <br />but only as indecipherable digital gibberish. The agency then refused to release any copy <br />of the software necessary to interpret these records. OSHA claimed that they had complied <br />with the request and the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and that their software <br />was not subject to such disclosure since it was not a specifically subject to FOIA. <br /> <br />Electronically stored information and software should not be treated as two different <br />"things" in the formation of open records policy. However, in many of the states that have <br />addressed this issue, these have been treated distinguishecL In Colorado, this distinction <br />became law on the 1st of July, 1992, when amendments to the Colorado Public Records <br />law became effective. Among the many changes made by these amendments, was the <br />explicit exception of computer software from the list of things to be considered writings <br />under this law. Unfortunately, while clearly stating that software is not to be considered a <br />writing subject to disclosure, the amendments did not state how software was to be treated. <br />This could open the door for a custodian in the state to use OSHA as a role model and <br />subvert the purposes of the Public Records law. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG'aphics, Inc. <br /> <br />3 <br />