Open Records Law In the GIS Age

So much for a vacation...

A VERY interesting open records case, that will effect the Wisconsin GIS community, was issued today. It was reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and posted on the LIO-TECH listserv (thanks Tony!)

I'm a big fan of looking at the raw data yourself, so here is the link to the Decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. (If you've never read a court opinion before, go ahead, they're not as technical as you might think they are, its a lot easier read than your mortgage application).

First, I'm not a lawyer, this is my observation/editorial, it is NOT legal advice. Second, if you're an County LIO or a municipal GIS-person you should have a conversation with your County/City/Village/Town Attorney about this case.

For background the case involves three Wis. municipalities that contract out for their property assessment. A firm then submitted an open records request for the three municipalities for their assessment data. The firm didn't like the municipalities response. It went to Court. (For more background read the the JS article or the opinion itself).

Some interesting quotes from the opinion:

"Accordingly, simply because Sussex, Thiensville and Port Washington have contracted out the collection and maintenance of the assessment information does not mean that they have relieved themselves of their responsibilities under the open records laws. The municipalities are the responsible authorities under the open records laws." ... "Simply put, the responsibility for upholding the letter and spirit of the open records law travels to the governmental or quasigovernmental entity enumerated in WIS. STAT." ... "As we have explained, where the open records law is concerned, the buck stops with the municipalities."

Thus Local government cannot transfer their authority to a outside agency.

"[In a previous case it was argued that the] record requesters have no right to copies of computer programs, but rather only may request the information which is inputted into a computer for processing. We rejected this argument, finding it contrary to the remaining language in § 19.36(4), which also permits access to the material produced as a product of the computer program."

This is where the case gets a little complicated but what the Court I think is saying is that a records is a record regardless of how it is stored. For example, a "image" is a record regardless of whether it is stored on photographic paper, or as a TIF, JPEG, MrSID image. The software inside a digital camera or software like Photoshop isn't public record, but the image it stores and retrieves is. Thus the court writes:

"The organization and compilation of the data into the Microsoft Access database, done at public expense, allows greater ease of public access to the public assessment information. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the open records law, we will not allow the municipalities to deny WIREdata, and others who seek the information, the value-added benefit of this computerization." ... "WIREdata’s requests do not require the municipalities and their assessors to compile or collect statistics or to explain, interpret or analyze information. As our discussion demonstrates, the municipalities and their contract assessors already have the material available in the format WIREdata seeks."

Wow, so the Court saying that data collected for the public is the public's data - regardless of who it was collected by and what format it may be in? Does it mean the input is public, and the output is public, and the means between the two can remain private?

This case is about property assessment data. What does it say about GIS data? If you replace 'property assessment' with 'land information' throughout the Opinion, do you think the outcome would be any different? Or would it be exactly the same?

What does this do to all the land information (orthophotography, planimetrics, cadastral, etc.) that is being purchased and then resold by local governments? Is cost-recovery still-practical?

Go talk to your County/City/Village/Town Attorney, because I'm guessing anyone that's interested in land information will be soon. Read the case again. Its likely we'll be reading citations in future case law too.

Hello 2007.