|
<br />TAX DATA CORP. y. H1JTl' '
<br />ar..._ P.2cI 3D (CoIo.App. '''11
<br />decltres "that all public recorda shall be Which provides the information in, _ mamaer
<br />open for inspeet:ion by IlIIY penon at mJ- identical to viewing the same infon>uLtion
<br />6O"II4bu. tlmes." (emphasis added) ADd, on _ computer aaeen. Ac:eordiDgly, the
<br />unlike the I1liDois Act at isaue in AFSCME, regulatioDS do not d4ny aeeess to electroDi-
<br />, mpra, f U-72-203(1) expressly authorizes cally stored public records, but merely reg-
<br />regulGtory 1imitatioua on the public's right uIate the 1II4n_ of aeeess to public infar-
<br />of inspeet:iou. Moreover, this provision re- !II4tion.
<br />serves to the eustodiau the determiDation
<br />of what form such reruiatol'7 1imitatiODS
<br />shall take.
<br />
<br />U, 21 Thus, we conclude that the basic
<br />purpose of the Open Recorda Act is to
<br />insure the public's access to i7ifO!'7lllJtiGn
<br />whi<;h is _ matter of public record, in _
<br />fonn which is reasouably aeeessible and
<br />which does not alter the contents of the
<br />information. Reviewing the department's
<br />regulations in light of this basic purpose,
<br />we further conclude that the district court
<br />properly characterized the isaue presented
<br />by the corporation's application as one re-
<br />lating to the 1II4n_ of aeeess to public
<br />records "Which aie,electronicaDy stored.
<br />The regulatioDS specifically provide ac-
<br />cess to 'the electronically stored informa-
<br />tion in the following three formats: (I) oral
<br />communicatioDS with treasurer's office em.
<br />ployees; (2) microfiche copies; and finally,
<br />(3) print-outs of information displayed on
<br />computer termiDals. Clearly, all three for-
<br />mats provide the record information in easi-
<br />ly understood fonn and, thus, are "readily
<br />accessible." Su Di8mv.ke8, mprc. More-
<br />over, while there is _ risk that information
<br />furnished verbally could lead to aD uniDten-"
<br />tional alteration of content aDd information
<br />furnished on microfiche could be outdated, ,
<br />information furnished by computer print-
<br />out is subject to neither of these risks.
<br />Information in a computer is analogous
<br />to infonnation reconled in code. Sse Sei. :,
<br />gu. 11. - Barry, mprc. The computer d...
<br />codes or tranSlates the information IlIId
<br />sends it either transiently to the computer
<br />screen or in a permanent form to 'the' ColD-
<br />puter printer. Thus, a computer prUit-out
<br />is, for all intents and purposes, tantamount
<br />to a visual ~Ya1'l'linSltion of the same infor-
<br />mation ou a computer screen. ~.
<br />In sum, the regulationa grant reasonable
<br />aeeess to electronicaDy stored information
<br />in _ number of formats, _t least one of
<br />
<br />".,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.------...----....
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />Colo. 357
<br />
<br />B.
<br />
<br />(31 We note the corporation'_ tangential
<br />argument that the fee attached to _ com-
<br />puter print-out invalidates the propriety of
<br />this format under the Open Records Act.
<br />Indeed, the Act does not expressly require
<br />the payment of _ fee to exercise the right
<br />of inapeet:iou. However, the Legislative
<br />Council Researdt Publicat:ion reveals that
<br />this omission was intentional. .An earlier
<br />draft had contained a provision for inspec-
<br />tion "without charge" but this language
<br />was deleted because "it was felt that in
<br />IOme cases the custodian's rules IlIId regn-
<br />IatiODS miglit include the, establisbment of
<br />nominal fees." Su ope;. Pub/ill RectwrU
<br />for Co/tmIdo, mprc. Thus, we conclude
<br />that the corporation's argument is without
<br />merit.
<br />
<br />II.
<br />
<br />(41 Next, the corporation contends that
<br />the district court erred in concluding that
<br />the regulatioDS met the standards set forth
<br />in f U-72-203(I).We disagree.
<br />
<br />Section U-72-203(1) provides, in reJevant
<br />part: .
<br />'"l'he official eustodian of aDY public
<br />record may make such rules IlIId regula-
<br />tioDS with reference to the inspeet:ion of
<br />[public] recorda as reasonably r-""Y
<br />for the protection of such records and
<br />the prevention of unnecessary interfer-
<br />ence with the regular discharge of duties
<br />of the eustodilin or his office." "
<br />
<br />There is abundant e.;dence in the reeonl
<br />from which we conclude that the regula-
<br />tiODS meet the standards of f U-72-203(1). '
<br />Specifically, teStimony established _ legit.'
<br />imate Concern for the secUrity and integrity
<br />of the tax files, some of which COIItained .
<br />confidential information.' Likewise, direct
<br />access to the computer database itself is
<br />
<br />;j
<br />;!
<br />'j:
<br />II'
<br />:!
<br />".
<br />'.'
<br />'!q
<br />:,/
<br />
<br />,;
<br />
<br />i
<br />
<br />I
<br />:I'
<br />
<br />;:1
<br />,,'
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />, '
<br />
<br />,
<br />I
<br />I
<br />i
<br />I
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />('\J
<br />Q:)
<br />C\') ,
<br />~
<br />
<br />.... .',
<br />
<br />. .~
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
|