Connecticut is poised to become a national leader in ensuring public access to computerized government records, a crucial freedom-of-information issue as governments shift their records from paper to computer tapes and disks.
Legislation given final passage in the state Senate June 3 provided that any citizen or news organization requesting computer-stored public documents of information can get the data in the form desired - for example on floppy disk, computer tape or printout. Further, it would block governing bodies from signing exclusive contracts with private firms that would sell government records to the public. It also requires that governments keep the state Freedom of Information law in mind when they construct computer programs for storing and retrieving data.
"I think this is real landmark legislation in the United States, if not the western world," said Mitchell W. Pearlman, executive director of the state Freedom of Information Commission.
The state Senate unanimously passed the bill without debate Monday, sending it to Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. The measure had cleared the House, 124-21.
"It's absolutely critical legislation," said Timothy B. Gassert, director and counsel for the Division of Public Records in Massachusetts. "The Connecticut example is one that should be followed by all the states, and by the federal government too."
The bill addresses problems that have surfaced as governments have increased their reliance on computers. News organizations and other groups increasingly want government records in computerized form, which makes it easier to search through the records without leafing through mounds of paper.
But governments often don't oblige.
"If someone wants to search government files to see, for example, whether the government is paying the same person twice for the same job, you can find that easily with fairly simple computer search techniques," Pearlman said.
In some cases, they offer documents only in printed copies - expensive and insurmountable reams of paper. In other cases, they charge artificially high fees for shifting information to a computer format the public can use.
"We're entering into a new era of government, an electronic bureaucracy," said Gassert, the Massachusetts official. "And ironically, that kind of modernization is being used by many in government to restrict access to information that is supposed to be available to the public."
The bill enforces governments to honor any reasonable request for computer-stored public information. For example, a reporter who wants population statistics on floppy disk could get them, provided he or she was willing to pay a fee for the cost of transferring the data from whatever format the government uses. Governments could charge fees for shifting the data, but only within strict guidelines intended to prevent governments from artificially limiting access.
The bill would not force governments to increase their reliance on computers, and would not make available any information that is now kept private.
The most forward-looking aspect of the Connecticut bill requires government agencies to consult with a central state information office before buying new computer systems.
Many existing government programs do not separate public and private information, and the unclassified data cannot be easily pulled out.
The bill would take effect on July 1, 1992.
"It's a recognition that computerized records have particular benefits and problems associated with them," Pearlman said. "This bill takes the first steps toward dealing with those problems."
Brant Houston, a reporter for the Hartford Courant and frequent contributor to UPLINK, testified in front of the Connecticut legislative committee responsible for Freedom of Information laws earlier this year. Houston did this at the request of a coalition of news organizations. Houston told the legislators the difficulties he had encountered when trying to access electronic records, and he described some of the "silly excuses" government record keepers used to withhold information. Judging by the bill described in this article, it seems Houston's testimony paid off.