ERSC Meeting Minutes November 10, 1999The Electronic Records Study Commission met on Wednesday, November 10, 1999 at 1:00 p.m. via teleconference between Fayetteville and Little Rock, pursuant to written notice fixing the place and time. The following Commission members were present or absent as indicated below: Dennis Byrd In person
Little Rock being all of the Commission members appointed in accordance with the provisions of Act 1060 f 1999. Julie Cullen called the meeting to order. She then called for a motion to either amend or accept the minutes. Carol Griffee requested that the minutes be held in abeyance until the secretary can review the tape from the last meeting and include in the minutes the responses of the two vendors regarding questions about their ability to respond to RFPs and provide assistance to government entities in complying with the FOIA. The Commission members agreed to this request. Julie Cullen explained that this meeting is focused on presentations from state agencies regarding specific concerns regarding FOI issues. She then invited the speakers to address the Commission in terms of concerns, suggestions, or ideas regarding changes to the FOIA as it pertains to electronic records. Preston Means, Department of Finance & Administration, Revenue Department Mr. Means explained to the Commission how FOI requests are handled in terms of electronic records in the Revenue Division. He said that it is much easier for them to deal with electronic records in making compilations compared to manual records. Older systems are housed at the Department of Information Systems, using various levels of technology. One major difference now is that Revenue does not take output from these jobs in the form of paper any longer, but in the form of ASCII files that will then be loaded into a desktop system to be manipulated further from standard reports, as opposed to constructing custom queries for data.. He explained that many FOI requests can be fulfilled with standard modular reports. The policy of Revenue is to look at the request and determine whether the data is readily available, whether it should be readily available and maintained by DFA, or whether it's a special request and the requestor will need to pay for the query and report. The requestor then decides whether they want to pay the cost for that information. Mr. Means explained that the number of FOI requests varies because they handle so many records involving driver licensing, motor vehicle registration and tax records. He said that they get at least a couple of requests a month. Mr. John Tice is the FOI control person for the Revenue Division and handles those requests. Mr. Means explained that if the information is already maintained on the system and if custom programming is required, then it takes a week to ten days at the most to provide the information. The normal process is for Revenue to put a service request in place with DIS and ask for a cost estimate to provide the information. DIS would respond with the cost estimate and a timeframe. Mr. Means explained that they first determine whether Revenue can produce a report from the data they already have or whether it has to go to DIS for special programming. He said that if it is information that Revenue has available, normally a request can be fulfilled in a day, unless it's very complicated. If it goes to DIS and custom programming is required, then it will take up to ten days, depending on the complexity of the request. Mr. Means commented that a two-week time period should be ample for his division to fulfill the most complicated FOI requests, assuming that staff and resources are available. He estimated that his office receives only about one FOI request a month that has to be passed on to DIS for special work. The subject of privacy was brought up and Mr. Means said that in regards to the Revenue Division, they only deal with summary data and it isn't an issue. He pointed out that driver records and motor vehicle records are covered by the federal privacy laws, and that there is some conflict between state and federal law, but that it is still undecided in the courts. He was asked about cost and estimated that a complex request could fall within the $3000 to $5000 range, or higher. He explained that the record is not saved in these cases, but the query is saved in case the same request comes in again, and this lowers the cost for future reports. Mr. Means explained that DFA owns the records and that DIS is merely custodian of the data. He pointed out that FOI requests had to come through his office in order to provide the correct data and to make sure that the data was accurate. Julie Cullen commented out that DIS interprets FOI to mean that the agency owns the information. Mr. Means added that DIS has no authority to change any of the data and that they follow his office's instructions regarding handling of that data. Michael Hipp, Director, Department of Information Systems Mr. Hipp outlined issues that he is aware of regarding FOI issues. One of these issues is the indexing of electronic records which would allow better access to records due to the sheer volume of information available. He explained that the issue of charging for electronic records comes up frequently, and that the basic premise that only replication costs should be charged is sound, but that it gets complicated regarding data that has commercial value and is a possible revenue source for the state. A third issue he described is that of repeated similar requests for which smaller offices simply don't have the staff to support. The ownership of records is also an issue in that an agency like DIS has data in its possession that it does not own and that this issue needs to be clarified. He explained that at this point in time, DIS is interpreting the law. The fourth issue he brought up is that of DIS and the state telephone records. As an example, he explained that ADED has the authority to keep certain information confidential when working on business agreements that would bring industry into the state, so if someone approaches DIS for telephone records of ADED, there is the problem that DIS cannot know what telephone records can be released or not. He feels that DIS should not be put in the position of making that kind of policy judgment on telephone information. Mr. Hipp explained that the state is saddled with a lot of old information systems that don't lend themselves very well to ad hoc FOI requests. He proposes that as the old systems migrate to modern systems over the next two years, the opportunity will be there to build a system that is more flexible in regards to extracting information. He would like to see a change in procurement policy or law that would allow for electronic FOI in all upgrading and acquisition of information systems. He would also like to see better access to legacy systems. Mr. Hipp explained that he would like to see a state policy making state information or data that should be made public available on the web and should be accessible. Money for this type of system will not be available right away, but that policy could be set and implementation guidelines can be set in place for the future. He supports the concept of a data warehouse, which would let the agencies themselves manipulate and screen the data, but that having the data available on the web would provide the most direct public access. He made the recommendation that a practical definition of electronic records be made in relation to information that is maintained, updated, and kept over time for archival purposes, which will allow systems to have the right tools to keep the information accessible and will guarantee that the data actually has value as an official public record of significance. In relation to repetitive FOI requests, he recommended that that type of data be the first to go online, which would help reduce costs. He also talked about needing standards of disseminating information and said that web access is a good way to provide state information. In relation to ownership of records, he recommended designating by law who the owners of records are, which would clarify the difference between someone who is a custodian of data and the actual owners of the data. Mr. Hipp explained that he sees a difference between the mechanical ability to manipulate information versus having the authority to pass judgment over it and that in terms of email records, DIS would direct an FOI request to the owner. He felt that this would be the same for state telephone records because DIS has no way to make qualitative judgments on records. The topic of how long to keep email records came up and Mr. Hipp agreed that some type of policy regarding time limits needed to be explored by the Commission. Bob Russell, State Attorney General's Office Mr. Russell explained that all information is open to FOI action in relation to litigation. He commented that in relation to email, simply deleting a message does not truly delete a record, and there are questions whether the action of deleting a message is enough to legally delete a record. Recovering a deleted email message can become very expensive and it may be impractical to get a particular record. He commented that the FOIA deals with email, but wondered if it deals with it specifically enough for a requestor to gain information. Mr. Russell feels that there is probably enough grey area which would allow someone to avoid a particular question. He explained that the FOI law needs to be examined closely for any revisions that might need to be made and he questioned whether there needed to be a lengthening of the time period for delivery. He felt that once the framework is established for email, the agencies will determine how to handle their own email. Mr. Russell emphasized that with regard to how technical aspects are handled, all that can really be done is set the parameters and after that it will be subject to judicial interpretation regarding these issues. James Winningham, CIO, Department of Insurance Mr. Winningham introduced himself as the Chief Information Office for the Arkansas Insurance Department. He explained that the subject of privacy is very important to him, and that he has worked in the past with classified data while in the Army. Mr. Winningham said that the Insurance Department is very keen on availability of information and that it is extremely important to the Insurance Commissioner that his senior staff be available to the public. The Department provides information through their web site and intends to provide more information in the future. Mr. Winningham explained that he feels that FOI deals with information that is necessary to monitor the activities of government. He made the point that it is necessary to have freedom of information because there is a repository for power that influences the lives of the public and that it is also necessary to give the people power over their government. He went on to explain that privacy is nondisclosure of information to anyone who has no right or need to know, even if the recipient is a government official. Mr. Winningham made two points regarding the need to be concerned about privacy: First, that there needs to be care in terms of what information the government is allowed to have and use, and that information is power a way to control people; second is that government is used to exercising power and has a history of abusing power. He asserted that the people own the data that is in the government systems; it is entrusted to the government to use to serve the people. He feels that the greatest potential threat to privacy and freedom has always been government and that the state should be careful about simply accepting whatever the federal government thinks is the right approach. Mr. Winningham explained that the courts in practice are making the decisions for the people based on legislation, but that the legislation that is put in place will presumably be influenced by this Commission. Mr. Winningham explained that the legislature has enacted laws that protect certain information that has to do with investigating insurance companies and when the Insurance Department receives an FOI request, it is routed to their legal department and if they approve the information as legally releasable, then the data is released. Mr. Winningham listed a number of issues that he finds disturbing regarding privacy. One is that he is seeing a tendency to set aside government protections of individuals in favor of promoting electronic commerce. Another disturbing trend, he feels, is the tendency to trust technology specialists, and he pointed out that sometimes technical people support endeavors that are not consistent with public freedom. He added that even ethical engineers cannot control government. Engineers also cannot prevent computers from corrupting data at a hardware level. He explained that government needs to work to protect information, to keep it accurate, and to see that it is used in the right way. In closing, Mr. Winningham stated that FOI should not sweep away concerns for privacy, but should provide proper information for proper purposes. He explained that the Commission needs to keep in mind that the government needs to be watched and that individuals should not be improperly watched. Kyle King and Joseph Dowell, Information Network of Arkansas Kyle King introduced INA as having been created by legislation in 1995 and opened for business in 1997. The main purpose was to provide state government information to the public electronically by internet. Initial focus was toward web site development and content. He explained that more recently INA has been moving toward electronic commerce applications based on demand from the public and government to provide things like on-line professional license renewals, tax payments, and tax collection. INA is overseen by a state board that makes decisions on pricing, work and applications. INA receives no state appropriations for the network and that everything is funded through fee applications and enhanced access and availability fees for information. He explained that the fees are collected from the public and that they do not charge any fee for which a state agency doesn't already charge. INA develops 95% of applications for free, but INA is funded through the applications from which they can generate profit. Joseph Dowell explained that INA retrieves information from agency databases and that INA provides that information gathering service to the public by web access. He also pointed out that INA is actually an agent of the state and that most of the fees that are collected go back to the agencies. Julie Cullen asked that Mr. King and Mr. Dowell address the points of who sets the fees for INA as well as the issue of complaints regarding annual fees required on corporation filings. She explained that this relates to the question of promoting on-line information for the public but at the same time charging for that information. Mr. King explained that the $50 annual subscription fee is being phased out for most applications and that the original intent was to get a signature on file and to cover monthly invoices. The traffic violation reports is the only thing that requires a signature on file, so this will continue with a subscription fee. The corporation filing fee will go a single payment per transaction. He also explained that the INA Board determines whether a service will be free or whether INA may charge for it. Some information and services are free to the state. Mr. Winningham explained that INA provides the service of a web interface for the Insurance Department and charges a fee to accept electronic filings for the Department. They then provide that information in a format that is acceptable for the Insurance Department accounting group. He went on to explain that INA charges nothing for the service to the Insurance Department, but that the cost is charged to a company using the INA web services to file. Mr. King explained that there is no fee schedule set in stone, but it is agency-specific and whatever is agreed upon for INA to recoup costs for maintenance of systems. Carol Griffee asked if INA handles email and Mr. King answered that INA does not provide any email services except for their own office. Mr. Winningham reemphasized that INA only charges for a part of the information provided on the web site. Julie Cullen asked how a balance can be struck between giving away free services to help government and agencies versus charging for those services. Mr. King said that it is the role of the Board to determine that balance. Shelby Johnson, State Land Information Coordinator Mr. Johnson offered to delay his presentation until the next Commission meeting due to shortage of time. He did introduce himself and passed out handouts to the members of the Board to look over before the next meeting. The handouts included some articles covering legal issues of GIS records on the internet and a GIS issues briefing document for the Commission. Julie Cullen asked the members to read over the Issues Document and recommend any corrections or additions prior to the next meeting. Attendance Julie Cullen explained the law regarding attendance at meetings for board and commission members and how important it is for members of the ERSC to participate on a regular basis in order to do the work that has been mandated. She explained that if a member misses three meetings without good reason, that absence should be brought to the attention of the Governor's Office or, in some cases, to the person who originally recommended the appointment. Next Meeting The next meeting was scheduled for December 15, from 1 to 4, with the location to be announced. Susan Cromwell will chair the meeting in Julie Cullen's absence. Susan stressed the need to have a quorum attend the meeting in order to be able to take care of the business of the Commission. Ms. Cromwell reiterated that Shelby Johnson will give his presentation at the next meeting. There being no other business to be transacted and upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Patti Hill, Secretary |