Friday, May 25, 2007 Court Confirms Public Records Law October 11, 2006 Santa Clara County Sued by CFAC for
Release of GIS Basemap
Data |
 |
| Press
Release MS Word, 24KB) |
|
Download
CFAC Court Filing (PDF,
514KB) |
|
| Learn about CFAC |
Friday,
May 18, 2007
Court Confirms Public Records Law
Although the California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires state and local government
records to be provided to anyone requesting them for no more than the cost of
duplication, until recently, 21 of California's 58 counties sold their GIS digital
parcel basemap data for significantly higher prices. In October 2005, the California
Attorney General issued an official opinion stating that digital parcel data
is subject to public inspection and copying under provisions of the CPRA (http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly_index.php?year=2005, Look for 04-1105). Subsequently, eight counties changed their data distribution
policy, and now offer their GIS basemap data for free or nominal cost.
However, 13 counties still maintain a high-cost data distribution policy, contending
that GIS basemap data is exempt from the CPRA. They assert that the A.G.'s opinion
does not have the force of law - only a Judicial judgment can confirm or deny
their policy. Now, as of May 18, 2007, such a judgment has been rendered.
The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) took Santa Clara County to court
after the county denied CFAC's request for the county's GIS basemap data at the
cost of duplication and with no other restrictions on how it might be used or
redistributed. Judge James P. Kleinberg of the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County reviewed the many arguments and rebuttals of the case over
three months, and issued the Court's decision in favor of CFAC. Judge Kleinberg
directed Santa Clara County to:
1. Provide CFAC with an electronic copy of the GIS basemap, and
2. Charge CFAC the direct cost for the copy provided.
The decision affirms the legislative intent stated in the CPRA (Government
Code §6250)
that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business
is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state."
"
Affordable access to the GIS basemap means that the media and ordinary citizens
will have a powerful tool for judging government performance in such areas as
tax assessments, zoning variances, and equitable deployment of public services," said
Rachel Matteo-Boehm, of the San Francisco office of Holme Roberts & Owen
LLP (www.HRO.com), CFAC's lead counsel in
the case. The decision ("CFAC
vs Santa Clara County, No 1-06-CV-072630") recounts how analysis of the
GIS basemap data, used in conjunction with other data, "could allow a
property owner to question why, all else being equal, one particular parcel
is assessed
more than another."
The Court's decision rejected various claims made by the County that its basemap
data should be exempted from the CPRA, for such reasons as the GIS basemap
is software, the basemap is copyrighted, the basemap is a trade secret, the
basemap
is critical infrastructure information, and the public interest would be served
by not making the basemap public. Citing the state constitution (Article I,
Section 3, subdivisions (b)(1)-(2), "a statue shall be broadly construed if it furthers
the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of
access"), the Court concluded that the County failed to show a "clear
overbalance" on the side of non-disclosure.
"
This landmark decision vindicates our view that government agencies may not claim
exclusive control over records that are created with tax dollars," said
Peter Scheer, CFAC's Executive Director. CFAC is a nonprofit public interest
organization dedicated to advancing free speech and open-government rights
(www.CFAC.org). CFAC's members are newspapers and other news organizations.
"
This is a validation for the citizens of Santa Clara county who are legally entitled
to access their county's data, including the GIS basemap," said Bruce Joffe,
organizer of the Open Data Consortium (www.OpenDataConsortium.org) and technical
advisor to CFAC's legal team. "It is also a validation for the citizens
of 12 other California counties that currently change more than the cost of duplication
for their GIS basemap data." The Court has confirmed that CPRA applies to
GIS data, enabling citizens to access their government's data and thereby hold
their governments accountable. "This is a validation for all of California's
citizens," Joffe added.
The full text of the Court's decision (27 pages) can be downloaded from http://www.cfac.org/content/cfac_v_santaclara.PDF
Click here for detailed analysis
of Santa Clara County Lawsuit. (PDF,
1.4 MB)
CONTACTS:
Peter Scheer
California First Amendment Coalition
Executive Director
office 415-460-5060
ps@cfac.org
Rachel Matteo-Boehm
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
Counsel for CFAC in Santa Clara litigation
415-268-1996
rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com
Bruce Joffe
GIS Consultants
510-238-9771
GIS.Consultants@joffes.com
Los Angeles County Changes its GIS Data Distribution Policy
| For a little background on the OAG request |
|
| Download the Attorney General's letter requesting comments |
|
You can also download some examples of some of the responses already received, from:
| Boundary Solutions, Inc |
|
| CGIA |
|
| Bruce Joffe, GIS Consultant |
|
| American Title Company |
|
| Santa Clara County Assessor |
|
| Download a Rebuttal to Some CPRA Objections |
|
Don't delay in contributing your ideas to the
Attorney General's opinion.
See more at
www.caag.state.ca.us/opinions opinion 04-1105
Progress Report Summary, May 2007 May
2007
October
2006
Progress Report Summary, October 2006 ODC's recent survey of California's 58 counties found that: 21 Provide Parcel Data at No Cost 21 Sell Parcel Data at the Cost of Reproduction 13 Sell Parcel Data for More Than the Cost of Reproduction 3 Are Not Releasing Parcel Data (claim it is not ready yet) (numbers revises April 2007) The ODC campaign is supporting five strategies to improve geodata access while also helping public agencies to afford the cost of maintaining their geospatial databases. * Support Enforcement of the Public Records Law * Promote Use of Standard Data Distribution Policies & License Agreements to Harness the Private Sector for Distributing Data * Recommend Procedures to Capture the Value of Using Geodata and Allocate a Portion to Geodata Maintenance * Help to Formulate Legislation to Provide State Government Incentive Payments (perhaps in the form of a property transfer fee dedicated to geodata maintenance) * Encourage Building Geodata Repositories for Emergency Response Read the details in the full Progress Report, and learn how your knowledge and energy can assist the objectives of accessible and affordable public geodata while supporting its ongoing update and improvement by public agencies. | |
| CFAC Sues Santa Clara County for GIS Data | |
Links to Previous Progress Reports: April 2005 (PDF, 1.5 MB) November 2003 (MS Word, 40KB) |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
CA Public Records Act § 6250 |
|
|
Listing of State Public Access Records Law |
|
|
California 1st Amendment Coalition |
|
|
Data Licensing Study by NRC |
|
|
Data Cooperatives Lessons from Practice |
|
|
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute's link to most state and federal statutes |
|
| Bakersfield On-line Map Services |
|
|
California Geographic Information Metadata Catalog |
|
|
Canadian Data Sales Site |
|
| The Center for Democracy and Technology |
|
| The Center for Technology in Government |
|
| Digital Map Products |
|
|
ESRI Geography Network |
|
|
GIS Planning Web Sites |
|
|
OR Metro Data Sales Site |
|
|
Registry of On-line City Data NC |
|
|
Richmond VA - Selling GIS Internally |
|
Open Data Consortium progress report October, 2006
Back in March, 2006, 26 people co-signed a letter to each of California's counties asking them to state their policy on distributing their digital parcel data (GIS basemap). Thanks to their collaboration, our campaign to assure that these data - created and used by government agencies - be made available according to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), has made significant progress.
31 of California's 58 counties responded to our survey. Our current tally of the counties' data distribution policies indicates:
14 Provide Parcel Data at No Cost
22 Sell Parcel Data at the Cost of Reproduction
13 Sell Parcel Data for More Than the Cost of Reproduction
9 Are Not Releasing Parcel Data (claim it is not ready yet)
More importantly, nine counties have changed their data distribution policy this year, since the Attorney General's opinion stated that digital parcel data was subject to the CPRA. Those counties include Contra Costa, Humbolt, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Shasta, with three more in process.
The Open Data Consortium campaign continues working to improve public access to our public agencies' geospatial data because such access is necessary to our democracy: it helps keep our government's actions accountable to the people. The ODC campaign is supporting five strategies to improve geodata access while also helping public agencies to afford the cost of maintaining their geospatial databases.
* Support Enforcement of the Public Records Law
* Promote Use of Standard Data Distribution Policies & License Agreements to Harness the Private Sector for Distributing Data
* Recommend Procedures to Capture the Value of Using Geodata and Allocate a Portion to Geodata Maintenance
* Help to Formulate Legislation to Provide State Government Incentive Payments (perhaps in the form of a property transfer fee dedicated to geodata maintenance)
* Encourage Building Geodata Repositories for Emergency Response
Your support, suggestions, and encouragement really have helped this campaign. One of our ODC colleagues informed the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) of the campaign. They decided that public access to geodata was important enough to exercise their right to request Santa Clara County to provide their GIS basemap for the cost of duplication, as the Public Records Act requires. The county refused, asserting that the PRA does not apply (the Attorney General's opinion being only advisory). CFAC has insisted on preserving the public's right to this data by filing a law suit to enforce compliance according to the law. (CFAC's press release is included in the News/Links section of the ODC web site, as well as the text of the court lawsuit filing.)
Santa Clara County's two principle arguments for charging way more than the cost of duplication for its GIS basemap are that
1) They have proprietary rights under copyright protection, and
2) The GIS basemap is software (software is excluded from the CPRA requirement)
CFAC's principle arguments are that
1) GIS basemap data is subject to the CPRA requirements for public access; this assertion was supported by the California Attorney General's office opinion (04-1105) last year.
2) Government agencies can not claim copyright protection for public records, lest all government records be so protected and public access to government information, and therefore public scrutiny of government actions, would be terminated.
Obviously, the outcome of this action will significantly change the disposition of other counties' data policies in California, and probably, other government agencies nationally. Your valuable assistance is requested now. Please send me information, or references to information, that addresses any of the following issues.
* Descriptions or references to similar public record legal challenges, particularly concerning a public agency's claim to copyright protections.
* Descriptions or citations that explain the difference between software and geodata (!), yes, it is obvious to us, but how to convince a non-technical judge?
* Documentation describing how citizens or groups have used public geospatial data to monitor and understand specific public agency decisions (for example, land use decisions, zoning variances, property assessments, police service deployments, social service deployments, etc.)
* Any other suggestions, references, or information you think will be helpful in securing public access to public geodata records.
I hope this progress report will stimulate your thinking about ways you might assist the campaign. Here are some specific suggestions:
* Please let other people who may be helpful know about the Open Data Consortium campaign.
* Please send me your ideas and suggestions regarding the five strategies outlined above.
and, of course,
* Please let me know about prospects for your material, financial, and labor support.
Thank you.
Keep in contact.
Bruce Joffe
ODC Organizer
510-238-9771