A link to the Arizona state Ombudsmans office:
http://www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/default.
————————————————————————————————–
Here is a link to AZ CENTRAL news about public records you might find interesting.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special11/articles/0316sunshine-main.html?&wired
————————————————————————————————–
And a recent item of interest from our friends At Cochise County Individual & Property Rights Association:
An important Arizona Supreme Court opinion definitively expands the
scope of our Public Records Law. The complete opinion, in pdf form, is
online at
http://littlebigdog.net/MetadataRecordsRequest.pdf
Here’s a condensation.
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, 220 Ariz. 472, 207 P.3d 725 (App. 2009)
David Lake, Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
City Of Phoenix, and Frank Fairbanks, Mario Paniagua and Jack Harris, in
their offficial capacities, Defendants/Appellees
The question was not whether public documents must be produced; the
question was whether an electronic “public record” includes not only the
information normally visible upon printing the document on paper, but
also any embedded “metadata” which would not normally be printed.
The answer is Yes: if a public entity maintains a public record in an
electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded
metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.
To understand that holding, three terms — “record,” “public record” and
“metadata” — must be defined.
“Record” is defined by ARS 41-1350 as “all books, papers, maps,
photographs or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form
or characteristics … made or received by any governmental agency in
pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public
business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by the agency …
as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions,
procedures, operations or other activities of the government, or
because of the informational and historical value of data contained
therein.”
“Public record” is defined by a case from 1952 (Mathews v. Pyle, 75
Ariz. 76, 251 P.2d 893). Mathews defines a public record as: (1) a
record “made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate
purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to
serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference”; (2)
a record that the law requires to be kept, or “necessary to be kept in
the discharge of a duty imposed by law or directed by law to serve as a
memorial and evidence of something written, said or done”; or (3) “a
written record of transactions of a public officer in his office, which
is a convenient and appropriate method of discharging his duties, and is
kept by him as such,” whether required by law or not.
“Metadata” is “information describing the history, tracking, or
management of an electronic document.” Examples include “file
designation, create and edit dates, authorship, comments, and edit
history.” This is all “inherent” or “application” metadata, which is
embedded in the file it describes and moves with the file when it is
moved or copied. This case does not address “external” or “system”
metadata, which is not part of a document.
The metadata in this case was, for certain computer files, “the TRUE
creation date, the access date, the access dates for each time it was
accessed, including who accessed the file as well as print dates etc.”
This case arose when David Lake, a Phoenix police officer, filed a
complaint and lawsuit alleging employment discrimination by the City of
Phoenix. He also submitted a public records request to the City.
Arizona law provides that “[p]ublic records and other matters in the
custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all
times during office hours.” ARS 39-121.
Lake requested notes kept by his supervisor documenting his work
performance. After reviewing paper copies of the notes, Lake suspected
that they had been backdated when prepared on a computer. He then
requested “meta data” contained inside [the] file,” including “the TRUE
creation date, the access date, the access dates for each time it was
accessed, including who accessed the file as well as print dates etc.”
The City denied the request, contending that metadata is not a public
record.
Pursuant to ARS 39-121.02, Lake filed a “public records” case in
superior court. He alleged that the City was “intentionally and
purposely delaying the production of certain public records.” The
superior court denied relief. Lake appealed. The court of appeals
upheld the superior court’s decision.
The court of appeals found that Arizona statutes distinguish “metadata”
from “public records,” so that a public records request does not require
production of metadata. One appeals judge dissented, arguing that
metadata is not an “electronic orphan,” but is instead part of the
electronic document, so that “[w]hen [an] electronically created
document is a public record, then so too is its metadata.” The Supreme
Court agrees with the dissent.
Arizona’s Public Records Law serves to “open government activity to
public scrutiny” so that “the public may monitor the performance of
government officials and their employees.” Consistent with that goal,
Arizona defines “public records” broadly, and creates a presumption
requiring their disclosure. However, only documents with a “substantial
nexus” to government activities are public records; and even if a
document is a public record, it is not subject to disclosure if privacy,
confidentiality, or the best interests of the state outweigh the policy
in favor of disclosure.
Although Arizona statutes do not define “public record,” ARS
39-121.01(B) requires public entities and officers to “maintain all
records, including records as defined in [ARS] 41-1350 [see the first
page of this condensation], reasonably necessary or appropriate to
maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and of any
of their activities which are supported by monies from the state or any
political subdivision of the state.” The Supreme Court held in 1984
that ARS 39-121.01(B) supplements the Mathews definition of public records.
The court of appeals said that while ARS 39-121.01(B) broadly defines
“records,” the legislature has not defined which “public records” are
subject to disclosure under ARS 39-121.01(D)(1). The appeals court
suggested that this distinction supports interpreting “public records”
more narrowly than “records.” However, the Supreme Court rejected that
distinction, and found that all records required to be made and
maintained by 39-121.01(B) and preserved by (C) are to be available for
inspection under 39-121 and copying under 39-121.01(D), subject to
discretion as to privacy, confidentiality, or the best interest of the
state.
The court of appeals erred by parsing the electronic version of Conrad’s
notes and focusing separately on the metadata in the document. The
metadata in an electronic document is part of the document; it does not
stand on its own; it is as much a part of the document as the words on
the page.
Arizona’s public records law requires a review of a copy of the “real
record.” It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness,
to let public entities withhold information embedded in an electronic
document, such as the date of creation, which they would be required to
produce if it were written on paper.
The Supreme Court holds that when a public entity maintains a public
record in an electronic format, the electronic version of the record,
including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our
public records law.
The Court notes that this decision is unlikely to result in an
“administrative nightmare” as the City argued. A public entity is not
required to spend “countless hours” identifying metadata; instead, it
can satisfy a public records request merely by providing the requestor
with a copy of the record in its native format.
A law journal article about the case, before it got to the Arizona
Supreme Court, is at
http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/ALR/ALR2009/VOL512/Cockerham.pdf
The implication for citizens’ public records requests in Cochise County
is clear: when you request e-documents, add a specification that you
also are requesting all metadata about the documents.
______________________________________________________________________
