Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />A Study of GIS fo, the Colorado D8Ilartmant of Natu,al RlI8ClUJ'C8s <br /> <br />October 9. 1992 , <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Thus, the July 1st amendments to the Colorado Public Records law imply a legislative <br />intent to continue to require that the state and its agencies keep the door to their infonnation <br />open but allow the state and its agencies to choose if they wish to become a free, partially <br />subsidized, or wholly subsidized infonnation service utility. <br /> <br />There is another provision in the Colorado Public Records statutes that speaks to the issue <br />of avoiding the forcing of agencies to become free or low cost infonnation bureaus under <br />the weight of excessive information requests. In CRS 24-72-203(1), the language <br />provides that the "custodian of any public records may make such rules and regulations <br />with reference to the inspection of such records as are reasonably necessary for...the <br />prevention of unnecessary interference with the regular duties of the custodian or his <br />office." However, this provision is likely to supply only illusory protection for an agency. <br />The legislative declaration and the definitions included in this portion of the Public Records <br />law set up a very strong presumption of a right of public access and inspection. Any state <br />agency wishing to limit public access to its records, because of interference concerns, <br />would have the burden of proving that the access they wish to deny is going to so interfere <br />with the agency's functioning that this presumption of allowing access should be overcome <br />or cunailed. The legislative declaration seems to say that a portion of the functioning of an <br />agency, which is a custodian of public records, is to be given over to providing access to <br />those records. When a tribunal of any sort is weighing the disruptive effect of information <br />requests against these policies regarding access, a heavy thumb will be on the side of the <br />scale for allowing access. <br /> <br />Equal Protection <br /> <br />One final and very important point that should be mentioned in this discussion, is the issue <br />of denial of equal protection. Federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection <br />under the law (e.g., equal treatment) will come into play if and when DNR sets different <br />prices for the same products or services to effect public policy. Equal protection of the law <br />would be violated by a state's exercise of power which arbitrarily, unreasonably, or <br />"invidiously" discriminates. Stated affirmatively, governments may classify, categorize, <br />and even discriminate, so long as the differentiation of treatment is reasonable and <br />systematic. Categories of consumers for DNR GIS products may be created, but those <br />categories must be based on reasonable distinctions, especially with regard to a particular <br />rate applied to a specific products or services. All consumers fitting into the same category <br />must receive the same treatment with regard to the same product or service. Under equal <br />protection, the DNR must be careful about precedents it establishes for particular classes of <br />users. Reasonable classes receiving different treatment are easy to establish and very <br />difficult to change. The legislation expressly addresses this issue. <br /> <br />CRS 24-72-205(3) and (4) state that a custodian may charge the requester a fee for the <br />information provided. Subsection (4) specifically allows (e.g., suggests) the custodian <br />reduce or waive the fees charged for electronic products and services to be used for public <br />purposes and that "fee reductions and waivers shall be uniformly applied among persons <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG'aphics. Inc. <br /> <br />7 <br />