Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION D. PROPOSED LEGISLATION OF CONCERN (Continued) <br /> <br />5. H121 AMEND PUBLIC RECORDS LAW <br /> <br />Manager Recommendation: <br /> Oppose; could result in dedicating several employees to producing <br /> records for commercial interests with no cost recovery except cost of <br /> copies. <br /> <br />H121 <br /> <br />~To amend the Public Records Law.~ Rep. George Miller (Durham). This bill, <br />referred to the House Judiciary Committee #1, would add a number of provisions to <br />the state's public records law. People requesting access to records could not be <br />required to disclose their motives. No request could be denied on the basis that a <br />public record is commingled with non public records; and if separation was necessary, <br />the agency would have to bear the cost. An agency maintaining documents in <br />electronic form would have to maintain a register describing all databases containing <br />public documents by listing all data fields, describing the record layout, indicating <br />frequency of database update, listing all field to which public access is restricted, and <br />describing each form in which a database could be copied using the agency's existing <br />computer programs. No agency could acquire an electronic data processing system <br />without first determining that the system would not impede public access. Persons <br />requesting records could elect to receive copies in any form which agency is capable <br />of proxqding. Persons could request certified or uncertified copies, and the cost for <br />uncerfified copies could not exceed the actual cost of producing the copy, not including <br />overhead expenses such as salaries. Record custodians would have to respond <br />"promptly" to requests for copies and denials of requests would have to be <br />accompanied by an explanation. In action to compel disclosure, a court could order <br />attorneys' fees if the court found the agency wrongfully denied access without <br />justification and found no special circumstances that would make an award of fees <br />unjust. A court could order that attorneys' fees assessed be paid personally by any <br />agency employee or public official who intentionally violates disclosure laws. <br /> <br /> <br />