The meeting went well, with lots of good back and forth like the previous week's meeting. I was more involved in the discussion and had less opportunity for taking notes. Levar was going to send out summary, but don't know if he did or not. I'm still not in the email list for this working group according to the Senate staff working with the group.
We revisited the fee waiver issue, and it looks like fee waivers will remain, but no new category for qualifying for a fee waiver for indigent people. Apparently, the third category for fee waivers covers this category, but not exactly. The third category is mainly for indigent prisoners who need records for court proceedings that affect their rights. Similar, but not the same as indigent people in general, or ability to pay.
Fees assessed for actual costs was discussed again, with agreement on basic costs based on lowest cost staff available and qualified to research and compile the records, but agreement that indirect and overhead costs can go too far. A state mandated formula for calculating costs was recommended that would be used by all government entities, but of course, the final cost would vary from government entity to government entity.
More discussion regarding centralizing public records as they become classified as public, and a common internet database, and a graduated formula for government entities to comply. Emphasis was on getting local government entities to classify records as public to avoid costs of GRAMA requests.
Timeliness was also discussed at length.
Voluminous and extraordinary circumstances were discussed, but the group realized that nothing could be done to quantify these standards. So, no recommendation on these standards. Levar should have the recommendations for this topic, but nothing all that earth-shattering.
Dougall's business day question was briefly discussed, but didn't go too far because of the difficulty of dealing with the 4 and 5 day work week, which has been affected by the legislature's veto override this past weekend.
Nancy Lord came and participated in the meeting and was surprised at the opportunity to speak and the agreement among the committee members.
LaVarr Webb:
Cost & Timeliness Subcommittee
Conclusions & Recommendations
May 11, 2011
1. In the context of our discussion, three categories of government records exist:
a. Records that are clearly public, that should be immediately available, at no cost. Each branch, department, agency, and subdivision of government should be required by statute to identify these records and make them immediately available to the public, at no cost. We recommend that a central, searchable, on-line repository/database be created by the state to which these records can be uploaded and posted, available to anyone with Internet access. Precedent exists for this sort of repository.
This category covers the vast majority of records and eliminates the issues of cost and timeliness for these records.
b. Records that are public, but will require time and effort to make available. This is the category resulting in disputes over cost and timeliness. We suggest:
i. Establish by statute a standard fee formula, defining such things as full employee/labor costs (including benefits); lowest cost available employee; overhead and administration. Each government entity can then plug its own data into the formula to determine fees. This will make fees more standard and predictable.
ii. Publish fees so they are available and transparent.
iii. Provide more guidance on fee waivers, but allow significant agency discretion, with quick appeal to the State Records Committee or courts.
iv. Timeliness: We don’t recommend significant changes to current statute. Deadlines must be reasonable, but with flexibility to deal with large, complex requests. Allow quick appeal to the State Records Committee. Publish and make available deadlines. Some sentiment to provide flexibility (more time) for part-time elected officials who must respond to a GRAMA request.
c. Records that are not public records (not in our subcommittee scope of work to determine what these are.)
2. Other recommendations to improve the GRAMA process, reduce confusion, and encourage consistency.
a. Require on-line and/or in-person GRAMA training, and/or GRAMA certification, for relevant employees at all levels of government to create more consistency in the application of the law.
b. Provide and publicize at relevant government offices and on-line, easy on-line access to information about how to navigate the GRAMA process (including appeals process), the rights of those requesting records, importance of privacy, etc.
Schedule:
GRAMA Working Group,
Lane Beattie asked me to pass on some scheduling information to you.
As you know, our next meeting will be this Wednesday, May 11th, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Senate Building, Room 210.
The group will NOT meet on May 18th (legislative interim day) - but subgroups may choose to schedule workmeetings that week.
Whether we meet on May 25th is TBD - we could meet as a group or give subgroups another few days to finalize their work.
Then we'll meet again - for what might be our final meeting - on Wednesday, June 1st. Plan on 9 to 12.
Thanks! Let me know if you need any extra assistance.
Ric
No comments:
Post a Comment